Real Property Law

In an action by easement holder to establish the width of the easement and to establish its right to improve the easement, servient owner appealed from Supreme Court's denial of his summary judgment motion. The Appellate Division modified to hold that the easement's use was limited to ingress and egress, but otherwise affirmed, holding that questions of fact remained about the width of the easement.

In 1959, the owner of a parcel subdivided into two, leaving the owner's retained parcel landlocked. The deed to the servient 15-acre parcel reserved a perpetual easement "for the purpose of ingress and egress." In 2020, the successor in interest to the original owner applied for an area variance to build a residence on the dominant parcel despite the absence of road frontage. The owner of the servient parcel opposed the variance and asked the Department of Environmental Conservation to investigate oil barrels on the dominant land. The parties then began to dispute the width of the easement. Servient owner built an unlocked gate restricting the right of way to ten feet. Dominant owner then destroyed the gate with construction equipment. Dominant owner then brought this action seeking to establish that the width was 49 ½ feet and that they had a right to improve the easement. Servient owner sought a declaration that the easement was only 8 feet in width and that it could be used only for ingress and egress. Dominant owner also sought damages for defamation and servient owner counterclaimed for violation for the anti-SLAPP statute. Supreme Court dismissed the defamation and anti-SLAPP claims, and denied summary judgment with respect to the easement scope claims. Servient owner appealed.