Summary
This New York Appellate Division, Fourth Department opinion resolves a dispute over a private right-of-way and easement under RPAPL Article 15. The plaintiff sought to require defendants to close and lock a gate on her property and enjoin them from bypassing it with smaller vehicles, while defendants argued they were entitled to continue their established practice of passage. The court affirmed the lower court's judgment, holding that the landowner's alteration of the easement did not impair the defendants' right of passage and that their historical use of the roadway was consistent with the scope of the easement.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the trial court erred in refusing to order plaintiff to lock the gate and to enjoin defendants from bypassing it
- Whether the defendants exceeded the scope of their easement by bypassing a locked gate
Holdings
- The appellate division affirmed the judgment, holding that the plaintiff did not demonstrate a need to lock the gate and that the defendants had not exceeded the scope of their easement; therefore the trial court’s order was proper.
Key quotations
“"A right of way along a private road belonging to another person . . . is merely a right to pass with the convenience to which [the easement holders have] been accustomed" (Lewis v. Young, 92 NY2d 443, 449 (1998)).”
“"[I]n the absence of a demonstrated intent to provide otherwise, a landowner burdened by an express easement of ingress and egress may narrow it, cover it over, gate it or fence it off, so long as the easement holder[s'] right of passage is not impaired" (Lewis v. Young, 92 NY2d 443, 449 (1998)).”
Factual background
The plaintiff owned land traversed by a private road that served as a right‑of‑way for the defendants. A gate was installed by a predecessor in the 1980s and keys were distributed to easement holders. Historically the easement holders used the road, sometimes driving around a locked gate with snowmobiles or ATVs. Plaintiff sought to require the gate be locked at all times, but did not show a security need or that the defendants exceeded the scope of their easement.
Procedural history
The trial court entered a non‑jury verdict granting defendants free and reasonable use of a right‑of‑way over plaintiff’s property and prohibiting plaintiff from locking the gate. Plaintiff appealed seeking to require the gate be locked and to enjoin defendants from bypassing it.