With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 136 A.D.2d 465, 466, 523 N.Y.S.2d 103, 104 (1988) (emphasis added). Thus, for the purposes of plaintiffs § 1983 claim, the Court must determine: (i) whether the same transaction or connected series of transactions is at issue; (ii) whether the same evidence is needed to support both claims; and (iii) whether the facts essential to the second claim were present in the first. See N.L.R.B. v. United Technologies Corp., 706 F.2d 1254 (1983). i. Plaintiff Has Put the Same Transactions at Issue In at least two prior actions plaintiff litigated his claim that the 1941 easement and the 1924 “franchise agreement” authorized NYSEG to extend electrical service to the property at issue. Jemzura v. New York State Elec. & Gas Corp., Index No. F-91602, slip op. at 5 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Madison Co. 1987) (<HOLDING>); Jemzura v. Town of Lebanon, et al., Index No.

A: holding that because the language of the easement was ambiguous the parties intentions were not clear and summary judgment was improperly granted
B: recognizing that an easement may entitle the easement owner to do acts which were not for the easement would constitute a nuisance
C: holding that an easement agreement and an unrecorded easement plan created an easement
D: holding a 1941 easement was not executed by the parties to the action and thus did not bind nyseg
D.