Real Property Law

In servient owner's action for a judgment declaring an easement void, or, in the alternative, limiting the scope of the easement, dominant owner appealed from Supreme Court's determination that dominant owner had only a right to use the easement for ingress and egress, but no other right to the subject roadway. The Appellate Division affirmed, holding that the easement provided dominant owner only with a right of ingress and egress.

Until 1959, the dominant and servient parcels were held in common ownership, and the undivided property enjoyed an easement across two other properties, connecting the undivided property to a public road. The easement was described as "an easement of Right of way for ingress and egress over a Private Road 35 feet in width." In 1959, when the dominant and servient parcels were divided, the servient parcel was immediately adjacent to the existing easement. As part of the subdivision, the dominant parcel was granted an easement, described as in the prior grants and then extended an additional 256 feet across the servient parcel. A 10-foot wide dirt and gravel driveway provides the only road access to the servient parcel, while the dominant parcel directly connects to another roadway. The current dominant and servient owners acquired their respective parcels in 2014. Servient owner began landscaping 25 feet of the 35-foot wide easement, leaving dominant owner with access to the remaining 10 feet. When dispute arose, servient owner brought this action contending first that the easement was void because it was not properly recorded, and second that dominant owner had only a reasonably convenient right of way over the easement area, and no right to widen the right of way to the full width of the easement. Supreme Court concluded that the easement was valid, but that the dominant owner had only a right of reasonable access.