Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs.
Contrary to the plaintiffs' contention, an easement for drainage of surface water may be acquired by prescription ( see, Village of Schoharie v. Coons, 34 A.D.2d 701, 702, affd 28 N.Y.2d 568, 569; Kusmierz v. Baan, 144 A.D.2d 829, 830). In the instant case, the respondent's use of a culvert to drain water onto the plaintiffs' property commenced before 1949, and was continuous, adverse, open, and notorious ( see, Van Deusen v. McManus, 202 A.D.2d 731, 732; 2239 Hylan Blvd. Corp. v. Saccheri, 188 A.D.2d 524, 525; Mandia v. King Lbr. Plywood Co., 179 A.D.2d 150, 156). There is no merit to the plaintiffs' contention that the presence of a swale on their property to collect the drainage from the respondent's culvert indicated that its use was permissive. The swale was constructed by the plaintiffs' predecessor in title, some 25 years after the land was initially used to collect drainage. Thus, by the time the swale was constructed, the easement by prescription had ripened ( see, Village of Schoharie v. Coons, supra; Reiss v. Maynard, 148 A.D.2d 996; Borruso v Morreale, 129 A.D.2d 604).
The plaintiffs' remaining contentions are without merit. Rosenblatt, J.P., O'Brien, Ritter and Goldstein, JJ., concur.