The Stranger to the Deed Rule

The Daniello case involved two neighboring Montauk parcels originally owned by Paley. In 1974, Paley conveyed one of the parcels to Neimanis, who built a driveway that encroached on Paley's retained land. Then, in 1989, Paley conveyed the retained land to Brancaccio and Boland, subject to an easement in favor of Paley "to use and maintain as part of a driveway and for no other purpose the existing driveway." The 247-square-foot dimensions of the easement were described by metes and bounds. Note that this deed was executed two years after the Court of Appeals decision in Estate of Thompson v. Wade. When Brancato and Boland conveyed their parcel to Wagner in 2005, the deed was expressly made subject to the same easement in favor of Neimanis' parcel. The Daniellos bought Neimanis' parcel in 2018 and renovated the driveway, replacing retaining walls and adding new ones. When a dispute arose over the renovations and the Daniellos' use of the driveway for parking, the Daniellos brought a declaratory judgment action to establish that they had both a deeded and a prescriptive easement over the disputed driveway area. Supreme Court granted summary judgment to the Daniellos on their claim to a deed easement, but denied summary judgment dismissing Wagner's counterclaim seeking injunction against parking on the easement. Both parties appealed.

The Second Department started by indicating that Supreme Court had erred in concluding that the Daniellos had acquired a deeded easement to the driveway area. The court invoked the stranger to the deed rule, citing Estate of Thompson v. Wade.