ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
The Supreme Court properly determined that the plaintiff is entitled to a prescriptive easement over the disputed portion of driveway because she presented sufficient evidence to establish that the use by her and her tenants of the portion of the driveway was adverse, open, notorious, continued, and uninterrupted for the prescriptive period of 10 years (see Coverdale v. Zucker, 261 A.D.2d 429, 430). The defendant failed to offer evidence proving that such use was permissive.
The defendant's contention that the testimony of the plaintiff's witness constituted inadmissible hearsay is without merit. The testimony was offered to demonstrate state of mind and not for its truth (see Garsten v. MacMurray, 133 A.D.2d 442).
FEUERSTEIN, J.P., SCHMIDT, ADAMS and CRANE, JJ., concur.