Brooks, Gill & Co. v. Landmark Properties, 217 Ltd. Partnership

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that continuous-use requirement was satisfied where fire escape was continuously used by claimant as “its method of satisfying the State building code requirements for egress,” despite fact that “occasions for representatives of [claimant] to walk on it were few”
• analogizing use of fire escape as potential evacuation route to “use of a wall in an adjoining building for support, which, by its very existence in a particular location, may be ‘used’ in such a way as to create a prescriptive easement.”
• analogizing use of fire escape as potential evacuation route to “use of a wall in an adjoining building 2 for support, which, by its very existence in a particular location, may be ‘used’ in such a way as to create a prescriptive easement.”
• discussing potential, remedies, including damages

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).