NY Court Affirms Intent in Deed Language for Easements

This week we wanted to draw your attention to an interesting case decided in the Third Department wherein the Appellate Division affirmed a Lower Court’s Order granting Plaintiff’s Summary Judgment motion enforcing Plaintiff’s rights with respect to two (2) separate easements established in the Deeds which transferred title to the Parties. 
The relevant facts of, as well as a link to, the case are set forth below.

Plaintiffs and Defendants own adjoining parcels in Warren County, New York.  In 2015, Plaintiffs commenced an action seeking a declaration regarding the scope of the two (2) easements, along with monetary damages for claims sounding in trespass, property damage and interference with use of their property. Defendants answered and asserted a counterclaim for a declaration that the easements are as defendants interpret them. The first Easement (the “Driveway Easement”) was labeled in the deed as "Easement and Right-of-Way to Redwing Road," and provided that "[l]ot No. 1 conveyed herein is conveyed together with a non-exclusive permanent easement and right-of-way for existing utilities and for vehicle and pedestrian traffic over the existing driveway over [l]ot 2 as shown on the map referenced herein.  The Second Easement (the “Shoreline Easement”) provides "an exclusive permanent easement for beach, boating, docking and any recreational use" over an area specifically defined by a metes and bounds description. 

In reviewing the specific Easement language contained in the Deed, the Appellate Division clarified that the only “relevant intent” as to the scope of the easements "is the objective intent of the parties as manifested by the language of the deed; unless the deed is ambiguous, evidence of unexpressed, subjective intentions of the parties is irrelevant" (citations omitted). Based on the expressed Easement language, the Appellate Court affirmed the Supreme Court’s Order which properly declared that “the Driveway Easement is limited to the portion leading from Redwing Road to the residence on lot No. 1 and properly enjoined Defendants from entering any other portions of Plaintiffs' driveway.  Additionally, with respect to the scope of the Shoreline Easement, the Appellate Court stated  “provided that Plaintiffs do not interfere with Defendants' use of the Shoreline Easement, Defendants may not exclude Plaintiffs from that portion of their own property” thereby affirming the Lower’s Court’s Order on this issue as well.

If you would like to view the case, click the below link:
https://nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2021/2021_05907.htm

This decision is another reminder of the importance of carefully drafting Easement provisions so as to clearly set forth the intention, scope and duration of the intended Easement.