DECISION AND ORDER Plaintiff is the owner of a 1.25 vacant parcel of land in the Town of Queensbury, Warren County. The land is bound to the east by Hannaford Road and then traverses west over Pilot Knob Road to a 15-foot strip of lakefront on the shore of Lake George, which lakefront includes a dock.1 Defendant George Knapp owns a vacant parcel of land on Hannaford Road immediately north of and adjacent to that of plaintiff. Defendants Gary Edie (hereinafter Edie), North Tract Properties LLC (hereinafter North Tract) and Casa Rocce, LLC own vacant parcels of land on Hannaford Road immediately north of and adjacent to that of Knapp. Each of these properties is located in what was once a 9-lot subdivision owned by E. Louis Bauer. Plaintiff’s land encompasses the majority of Lot No. 7 and its predecessors in title granted easements over the lakefront portion of the property to defendants’ predecessors in title. While the parameters of the easements differed slightly, each included the right to use and enjoy the waters of Lake George. Plaintiff purchased its land from the County of Warren in a tax foreclosure sale, with the land conveyed via quitclaim deed dated November 23, 2015 and recorded on December 3, 2015. Plaintiff thereafter commenced this action pursuant to RPAPL article 15 on June 2, 2017, seeking a judgment declaring that defendants have no easement rights over any portion of its property. Plaintiff further seeks monetary damages of $75,000.00 from Knapp and Edie, respectively, for an alleged diminution in the value of its property. Issue has been joined with defendants each asserting a counterclaim and cross claim for a judgment declaring that their respective easement rights are valid and enforceable. Presently before the Court is (1) plaintiff’s motion for bifurcation of the damages portion of the trial and for summary judgment as to the remaining relief requested in the complaint; (2) North Tract and Casa Rocce’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them and granting the relief requested in their respective counterclaims and cross claims; (3) Edie’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against him and granting the relief requested in his counterclaim and cross claim; and (4) Knapp’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against him and granting the relief requested in his counterclaim and cross claim or, in the event summary judgment is denied, for leave to amend his answer. The motion and cross motions will be addressed ad seriatim. Plaintiff’s Motion for Bifurcation and Summary Judgment At the outset, there has been no opposition to that aspect of plaintiff’s motion which seeks bifurcation of the damages portion of the trial. This aspect of the motion is therefore granted (see CPLR 603). Turning now to the second aspect of the motion, a party seeking summary judgment must establish its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by admissible proof (see Gilbert Frank Corp. v. Federal Ins. Co., 70 NY2d 966, 967 [1988]; Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]). Once the movant has met this initial burden, the burden then shifts to the opponent of the motion to establish, by admissible proof, the existence of genuine issues of fact (see Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 560 [1980]). Here, plaintiff has submitted a copy of its deed which provides, inter alia, that the conveyance is subject “to all existing tenancies, easements, rights, licenses, privileges, and agreements, as well as any covenants, conditions, restrictions, reservations, rights of re-entry, possibilities of reverter, rights-of-way, utility or other easement agreements, or sell-offs in former deeds or other instruments of record” [Quitclaim Deed, attached as Schedule "F" to Herrmann Affidavit, at p. 1].2 Plaintiff has also submitted the affidavit of Richard J. Herrmann, Jr., Esq., its sole owner and president, who discusses the easement rights of each defendant respectively, beginning with Edie. Herrmann states that defendant June B. Edie passed away, leaving her property to Edie and his brother, defendant Michael J. Edie, and that Michael Edie then conveyed his interest in the property to Edie, who is now the sole owner of the property. Herrmann further states as follows: “Upon information and belief,…Edie[] obtained title to this property by deed, document number 4535, recorded in Liber 1379 at page 104. The Edie property is not lakefront property. “Upon information and belief Edie’s predecessors in title had obtained a non-exclusive easement including a dock, boating and swimming rights over a 15-foot wide strip of land located along the most southerly portion of [L]ot 7…. “It is noted that this easement…was expressly terminated by deed recorded in Liber 475 at page 323″ [Herrmann Affidavit, at
21-23]. Plaintiff submits a copy of the deed terminating the easement, which deed is dated October 19, 1966 and conveys land from Louis Didio and his wife, Eleanor Didio, John Edie and his wife, June Edie, and Charles Didio and his wife, Minnie Didio, to Robert B. Bauer and his wife, Doris Bauer, stating: “It being the intention of the parties of the first part to quitclaim and release any and all interest in and to an easement or right of way over the premises above described,” describing said premises as an “easement…15 feet wide located on the southerly side of [L]ot No. 7…” [Indenture, attached as Schedule "J" to Herrmann Affidavit, at p. 1]. According to Herrmann, “[t]hereafter two (2) deeds, which conveyed the southerly 10-foot portion of [L]ot 7 including most of the area which had been formerly encumbered by [the] easement, were recorded” [Herrmann Affidavit, at 25], and “[t]hereafter another [deed] running from [the] Bauer[s] to [the] Didio[s,] Edie[s and] Didio[s] was recorded[, which deed] gives permission for ingress and egress together with a right to erect a dock and boating and swimming over a 15-foot strip of land to the predecessors in title of [Edie], North Tract…and Casa Rocce[, with the] location of this strip [being] 10 feet northerly of the southerly lot line of [L]ot 7, (10 feet northerly from [L]ot 8)” [Herrmann Affidavit, at 26]. Plaintiff contends, however, that the easement granted in this deed is invalid as a matter of law because (1) the grantors — namely, Robert and Doris Bauer — did not own title to the dominant estate when the easement was created; and (2) it fails to describe any dominant estate. The merits of these contentions notwithstanding, plaintiff has not submitted a copy of the deed creating the new easement — nor has it submitted a copy of the deed by which Edie obtained title to his property or any of the deeds by which Edie’s predecessors obtained title to the property. As such, the Court is unable to make any findings as a matter of law. It must also be noted that Herrmann’s statements with respect to the deeds by which Edie and his predecessors obtained title to the property are made upon information and belief and, as such, are of no probative value (see Oswald v. Oswald, 107 AD3d 45, 49 [2013]; Lockwood v. Layton, 79 AD3d 1342, 1344 [2010]; Anderson v. Livonia, Avon & Lakeville R.R. Corp., 300 AD2d 1134, 1135 [2002]; Onondaga Soil Testing v. Barton, Brown, Clyde & Loguidice, 69 AD2d 984, 984 [1979]). Under the circumstances, the Court finds that plaintiff has failed to meet its prima facie burden of establishing its entitlement to summary judgment with respect to Edie. As such, the Court need not consider his opposition to this aspect of the motion (see Vogler v. Perrault, 149 AD3d 1298, 1299 [2017]; Batzin v. Ferrone, 140 AD3d 1102, 1104 [2016]). Herrmann next discusses the easement rights of North Tract and Casa Rocce, respectively, stating that “[u]pon information and belief [their predecessors in title] obtained a non-exclusive easement for access, dock, boating and swimming rights over a 15-foot wide strip of land located along the most southerly portion of [L]ot 7…” [Herrmann Affidavit, at
