When Can You Gate an Easement? NY Court Clarifies Property Owner Rights

This week we wanted to bring to your attention an interesting decision out of the Appellate Division, Second Department, which, in modifying a Lower’s Court’s order, confirmed that the owner of a property that is burdened by an Easement for Ingress and Egress in favor of a neighboring property may, in fact “restrict” the applicable easement area by installing gates and/or fences (collectively “Easement Encroachments”), provided such Easement Encroachments do not substantially impair the neighbor’s actual right of passage via the Easement. 
The relevant facts of, as well as a link to, the case are set forth below.

In Panday v. Allen, 2020 NY Slip Op 05519 [187 AD3d 775 (2020)], the Plaintiffs and Defendants were respectively the owners of adjoining properties in Queens County which properties were each benefited and burdened by certain Ingress and Egress Easements set forth in the Deed to Defendant’s property.  The Plaintiffs initially filed suit alleging that Defendants interfered with Plaintiff’s rights to use the Easement to reach their garage located at the rear of Plaintiff’s Property by parking cars in front of the Easement area installing a certain gate and fencing in the Easement area. The Defendants countersued and sought an order declaring that the Defendants secured a prescriptive easement over the entire driveway for Defendant’s exclusive use.
 
Each party filed motions for Summary Judgment and the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Plaintiffs, and against the Defendants, by Order dated October 19, 2016, and the Defendant’s appeal ensued.  While the Appellate Court upheld that portion of the Lower’s Court’s Order which 1. confirmed the Plaintiff’s prescriptive Ingress and Egress Easement as set forth in the deed and 2. held that Defendants violated the Plaintiff’s easement rights by parking Defendant's vehicles in front of the Easement area, the Appellate Court did modify the Lower Court’s Order with respect to the original determination that the Defendant’s installation of a gate and fencing in the easement area substantially interfered with Plaintiffs' right of ingress and egress over the driveway.
 
The Appellate Court noted that "[e]xpress easements are governed by the intent of the parties" (Guzzone v Brandariz, 57 AD3d 481, 482 [2008]; see Lewis v Young, 92 NY2d 443, 449 [1998]). "As a [result], where the intention in granting an easement is to afford only a right of ingress and egress, it is the right of passage, and not any right in a physical passageway itself, that is granted to the easement holder" (Lewis v Young, 92 NY2d at 449) (emphasis added). "Indeed, an owner of land that is burdened by an express easement for ingress and egress 'may narrow it, cover it over, gate it or fence it off, [as] long as the easement holder's right of passage is not impaired' " (Matter of Goldberg v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of City of Long Beach, 79 AD3d 874, 877 [2010], quoting Lewis v Young, 92 NY2d at 449).  As a matter of law, the Appellate Court determined that the Plaintiffs were not entitled to Summary Judgment, absent admissible evidence to the contrary, on the issue of whether the Defendant’s installation of a gate and fencing in the Easement area substantially prevented Plaintiff from utilizing the Easement for its intended purpose of providing Ingress and Egress to Plaintiff’s garage.

To view this case, click the link below: 
https://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2020/2020_05519.htm