Tantillo v. Cutrone

2025 NY Slip Op 03093 · Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department · May 21, 2025 · No. Index No. 618523/21

Summary

The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed a trial court order granting a preliminary injunction that enjoined plaintiffs from interfering with the defendant's use of an easement over adjoining real property. The court held that the defendant established a likelihood of success on the merits, as the property was conveyed subject to the easement, and demonstrated irreparable injury would result if construction plans proceeded without allowing access. Balancing the equities favored injunctive relief, leading the appellate court to affirm the lower court's exercise of discretion.

Court
Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
Writing for the Court
Angela G. Iannacci, J.P.; William G. Ford; Helen Voutsinas; James P. McCormack
Jurisdiction
New York
Decision date
May 21, 2025
Docket number
Index No. 618523/21
Procedural posture
Appeal from order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County granting defendant's preliminary injunction
Standard of review
abuse of discretion
Precedential value
published
Parties
Raymond Tantillo, et al. v. Elizabeth Cutrone
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

easementsinjunctionsreal estatecivil procedure

Practice areas

civil procedurereal estate

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the trial court erred in granting a preliminary injunction to the defendant concerning the alleged easement.
  2. Whether the alleged 10‑foot‑wide easement over the plaintiffs' property is valid.

Holdings

  1. The appellate division affirmed the order granting the preliminary injunction, finding the movant satisfied the three‑part test for preliminary injunctive relief.
  2. The appellate division did not reach the substantive easement validity issue, as the appeal was limited to the preliminary injunction order.

Key quotations

To be entitled to a preliminary injunction, a movant must establish (1) a probability of success on the merits, (2) a danger of irreparable injury in the absence of an injunction, and (3) a balance of the equities in the movant's favor. (at 1)

Factual background

The plaintiffs own a parcel adjoining the defendant's parcel in Setauket. The defendant claims a 10‑foot‑wide easement over the plaintiffs' land for ingress and egress to a common beach. The plaintiffs contend the easement is invalid and sought a declaration to that effect. The defendant moved for, and obtained, a preliminary injunction pending resolution of the easement dispute.

Procedural history

The Supreme Court, Suffolk County granted the defendant's motion for a preliminary injunction enjoining the plaintiffs from interfering with the alleged easement. The plaintiffs appealed the order.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…