Summary
This New York Appellate Division decision resolves a dispute between neighboring property owners regarding rights to a shared roadway extension. The court reversed the trial court's grant of summary judgment on the plaintiffs' prescriptive easement claim, finding that historical agreements rendered the use permissive rather than hostile. However, the court corrected the trial court's misapplication of the statute of frauds and granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs on their easement by estoppel claim.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the plaintiffs established the requisite hostility for a prescriptive easement over the road extension
- Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to an easement by estoppel despite the lack of a written agreement and whether the statute of frauds bars such an easement
Holdings
- The court reverses the Supreme Court's grant of summary judgment for a prescriptive easement, finding that the plaintiffs' use was permissive and thus lacked hostility, and dismisses the prescriptive easement claim.
- The court grants summary judgment to the plaintiffs on their easement by estoppel claim, holding that the longstanding agreement and plaintiffs' reliance satisfy the elements of estoppel and that the statute of frauds does not bar such an easement.
Key quotations
“A party claiming a prescriptive easement must show, by clear and convincing evidence, that the use of the easement was open, notorious, hostile and continuous for a period of 10 years. Once the other elements are established, hostility is generally presumed, thus shifting the burden to the defendant to demonstrate that the use was permissive.” (231 AD3d 1445)
“An easement by estoppel may arise when, among other things, a party reasonably relies upon a servient landowner's representation that an easement exists.” (181 AD3d 862)
Factual background
The parties and their predecessors constructed and maintained a shared road extension across each other's properties to provide vehicular access. The extension was used continuously for decades under an informal agreement, but in 2018 defendants relocated the portion crossing the Scholet property and denied plaintiffs access, prompting the lawsuit.
Procedural history
Supreme Court granted partial summary judgment to plaintiffs for a prescriptive easement over the shared road extension and denied defendants' quiet title counterclaims; plaintiffs appealed the grant of prescriptive easement and the denial of their estoppel claim
Remand instructions
Record updated deeds reflecting the easement by estoppel; Hamilton County Clerk to record the deeds as directed.