The common owner of adjoining parcels of land in Saratoga Springs conveyed one of those parcels, reserving “an easement or right-of way for ingress and egress from Green Street [across the property conveyed] to the garage and woodshed” located in the rear of the parcel that was retained. The Plaintiff, a successor owner of the benefitted property, commenced an Action against the successor owner of the burdened property, seeking a declaratory judgment that the Defendant’s property was burdened by the easement, and an Order directing the Defendant to remove any obstructions interfering with his use of the easement. The Plaintiff alternatively claimed that he acquired an easement by prescription. The Defendant counterclaimed, seeking a declaration that the property was unencumbered by an easement. The Defendant argued that the easement was extinguished; the purpose of the easement no longer existed and the easement had not been used for its intended purpose for more than fifty years.
The Supreme Court, Saratoga County, partially granted the Defendant’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed the amended complaint. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed. According to the Appellate Division,
“An easement expressly created for, or limited to, a specific purpose may be extinguished by the abandonment of that purpose…The language of the express easement [reserved in the deed] does not, as plaintiff argues, evidence an intention to create an unrestricted and unqualified right-of-way over the servient estate to access the rear of the dominant estate…As such, we agree with the Supreme Court that the Green Street easement was created for the limited and specific purpose of providing access to the garage and woodshed on the dominant property….[The] defendant established that plaintiff unequivocally and permanently abandoned the specific purpose for which the Green Street easement was created…[Citations omitted]”
As to the claimed easement by prescription, the Appellate Division declined to find that the Supreme Court erroneously determined that the Plaintiff did not acquire a right-of-way from Green Street over the Defendant’s property. Stone v. Donlon, 2017 NY Slip Op 09225, decided December 28, 2017, is posted at
http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2017/2017_09225.htm
To learn more:
