Real Property Law

In an action by alleged servient owner for declaratory relief and damages against dominant owners who cleared an overgrown easement on servient owner's land, dominant owners appealed from Supreme Court's grant of summary judgment on servient owner's claim for injunctive relief. The Appellate Division reversed, holding that the "stranger to the deed rule" did not bar dominant owners from their claim to have an easement over servient owner's land.

In the early 1970s, Runnels and Partners, as tenants in common, created a residential subdivision. Two of the parcels, lots 6 and 7, abut a navigable waterway; lots 1, 2. 3, and 4 do not. Runnels and Partners conveyed lot 6 to Runnels individually in 1970 by a deed that made no reference to an easement. In 1971, Runnels conveyed lot 6 to Peconic, a corporate entity owned by Runnels. That deed again made no mention of an easement. Then, in April 1972, Runnels executed another deed to lot 6, again to Peconic, this time reserving an easement for the benefit of the owners of lots 1-4. Peconic subsequently conveyed lot 6 to a predecessor of the current servient owner. Meanwhile, in November 1972, Runnels and Partners conveyed lot 4 to a predecessor in interest of the current owner of lot 4, and, in 1971, conveyed lot 3 to Runnels individually. Both deeds purported to transfer an easement over lot 6. The alleged easement fell into disuse until 2013, when the current owner of lot 4 hired landscapers to clear the easement and make it traversable. The owner of lot 6 then brought this action to enjoin the owner of lot 4, and the other alleged dominant owners, from clearing trees located on the easement. Supreme Court granted the injunction, holding that the "stranger to the deed rule" rendered the easement void at its inception. The dominant owners appealed.