Easements and Property Rights: A Close Look at Panday v. Allen

Understanding property rights among neighboring landowners often hinges on the interpretation of easements. The case Panday v. Allen, 187 AD3d 775 (2020), before the Appellate Division, Second Department, explores the scope and enforcement of a party driveway easement. The ruling provides essential guidance for property owners dealing with disputes over shared access.

Case Background

This case centers on two neighboring properties in Queens. The defendants acquired their property by deed dated December 28, 2001, and the plaintiffs purchased the adjacent property situated to the north in 2011. The easements in question were explicitly set forth in the defendants’ deed, which provided:

“a right of way as a party driveway over the full strip of land lying between the [defendants’] house and the house on the premises immediately adjoining on the North for its full width and extending from the Easterly side of 148th Street Easterly to a depth of 80 feet as a means of access to and egress from the garage or any garages if any erected or to be erected on the rear [of the defendants’ property] and the said premises adjoining on the North.”

The deed also stipulated that the easement was “SUBJECT however to the similar use of said driveway and so much thereof over the [defendants’ property] for the use and benefit of the premises immediately adjoining on the North.”

Despite these express provisions, the plaintiffs alleged that the defendants had obstructed their use of the easement by parking vehicles in the driveway and erecting structures, such as a gate and fence, which interfered with their right of passage. This led to the plaintiffs’ legal action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. The defendants countered by claiming a prescriptive easement granting them exclusive use of the driveway.

Legal Analysis and Findings

Plaintiffs’ Easement Rights Affirmed

The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court’s order granting the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, determining, as a matter of law, that they held an easement appurtenant over the driveway.

The court explained that “an easement appurtenant occurs when the easement is created in writing, subscribed by the creator, and burdens the servient estate for the benefit of the dominant estate.” Here, the deed explicitly granted the plaintiffs an appurtenant easement for ingress and egress over the driveway. The plain language unequivocally provided rights to the plaintiffs, defeating the defendants’ argument that only they could lawfully use the driveway.

No Prescriptive Easement for Defendants

The defendants argued that their long-standing use of the driveway, including obstructing access by parking their cars there, constituted a prescriptive easement. However, the court rejected this claim, confirming the requirements for acquiring such an easement:

“To acquire an easement by prescription, it must be shown that the use was hostile, open and notorious, and continuous and uninterrupted for the prescriptive period of 10 years” (Ciringione v. Ryan, 162 AD3d 634 [2018]).

The court emphasized that these elements must be established by clear and convincing evidence. While the use is generally presumed hostile when shown to be open, notorious, and continuous, this presumption does not apply in situations involving neighborly cooperation or accommodation.

In this case, the prior owners of the plaintiffs’ property had permitted the defendants to park their vehicles in the driveway. This evidence of neighborly permission negated the “hostile” element required for a prescriptive easement. The court therefore concluded that the defendants’ claim failed.

Partial Relief Granted to Plaintiffs

While the court agreed that the defendants’ parking had interfered with the plaintiffs’ easement rights, it held that other alleged actions (such as the fence and gate erected by the defendants) did not sufficiently impair the plaintiffs’ right of ingress and egress under the easement provisions. The interpretation of express easements is guided by the intent of the parties, and alterations to the physical driveway are permissible as long as the essential right of passage remains unobstructed.  Stated simply, the parties must continue to discovery and trial on those issues.

Takeaways from Panday v. Allen

Panday v. Allen underscores the importance of clearly defined easement provisions in property deeds and the legal implications of their enforcement. The case aligns with precedents that prioritize the explicit language in deed terms when crafting easements and reminds property owners of the strict elements required to acquire prescriptive easements.

For those facing disputes over shared access or neighboring property use, the case emphasizes that express easements must be respected as written. Moreover, claims of prescriptive easements must meet rigorous standards, and permissive or cooperative use between neighbors may undermine such claims.

Stay informed about real estate and real property law developments at our real estate blog us as we break down key court rulings. Whether it’s interpreting deed language or dealing with property disputes, professional guidance by Peter Klose ensures your rights are protected.