Neighbor Driveway Disputes: Court Rules on Easement Rights and Requirements

This week we wanted to bring to your attention a decision out of the Appellate Division, Second Department which analyzed the requirements of, and differences between, Appurtenant Easements and Prescriptive Easements. 
The relevant facts of, as well as a link to, the case are set forth below.

The plaintiffs and the defendants owned neighboring properties in Queens. The defendants acquired title to their property by deed dated December 28, 2001. In 2011, the plaintiffs became owners of the property adjacent to and situated north of the defendants' property.  The Easements in question were recited in the Defendant’s Deed as follows: "a right of way as a party driveway over the full strip of land lying between the [defendants'] house and the house on the premises immediately adjoining on the North for its full width and extending from the Easterly side of 148th Street Easterly to a depth of 80 feet as a means of access to and egress from the garage or any garages if any erected or to be erected on the rear [of the defendants' property] and the said premises adjoining on the North." The defendants' deed also provided that the easement was "SUBJECT however to the similar use of said driveway and so much thereof over the [defendants' property] for the use and benefit of the premises immediately adjoining on the North."
 
In affirming the Lower Court’s Order which had granted Plaintiff’s Summary Judgment Motion based on the fact that, as a matter of law, the Plaintiffs had an easement appurtenant over the defendant’s driveway, the Appellate Court  noted that “an easement appurtenant occurs when the easement is created in writing, subscribed by the creator, and burdens the servient estate for the benefit of the dominant estate.”   In the present action, the Court determined that the express language in the deed, created an Appurtenant Easement in favor of the Plaintiffs for ingress and egress over the driveway.
 
In analyzing, and ultimately rejecting, the Defendant’s claim seeking a prescriptive easement over the driveway to park their cars, the Court confirmed that “to acquire an easement by prescription, it must be shown that the use was hostile, open and notorious, and continuous and uninterrupted for the prescriptive period of 10 years' " (Ciringione v Ryan, 162 AD3d 634, 634 [2018], quoting Masucci v DeLuca, 97 AD3d 550, 551 [2012]). "The elements of a prescriptive easement must be established by clear and convincing evidence" (CSC Acquisition-NY, Inc. v 404 County Rd. 39A, Inc., 96 AD3d 986, 987 [2012]; see Ciringione v Ryan, 162 AD3d at 634; Patel v Garden Homes Mgt. Corp., 156 AD3d 807, 809 [2017]). "In general, where an easement has been shown by clear and convincing evidence to be open, notorious, continuous, and undisputed, it is presumed that the use was hostile, and the burden shifts to the opponent of the allegedly prescriptive easement to show that the use was permissive' " (Ciringione v Ryan, 162 AD3d at 634, quoting Carty v Goodwin, 150 AD3d 812, 812 [2017]). "This presumption, however, does not arise 'when the parties' relationship was one of neighborly cooperation or accommodation" (Colin Realty Co., LLC v Manhasset Pizza, LLC, 137 AD3d 838, 840 [2016], quoting Ward v Murariu Bros., Inc., 100 AD3d 1084, 1085 [2012]). Based on the evidence presented, the Court determined that the prior owners of the plaintiffs' property gave the defendants permission to park in front of or in the driveway thereby blocking access to the rear of the plaintiffs' property and therefore, the defendants could not satisfy the “hostile” element required to establish a Prescriptive Easement.

To view this case, click the below link: 
https://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2020/2020_05519.htm
 
We hope that this case is useful to our clients as it sets forth a clear summary of how Courts analyze the distinctions between Appurtenant Easements and Prescriptive Easements when disputes arise between neighbors.