Willow Tex, Inc. v. Dimacopoulos, 68 N.Y.2d 963 (1986)
To create an easement by express grant, there must be a written document containing plain and direct language evincing the grantor’s intent to create a right in the nature of an easement, demonstrating an intent to give a permanent right of use to the dominant estate.
Summary
Willow Tex, Inc. and George Dimacopoulos are adjacent property owners. Willow Tex sought a declaration of an easement over Dimacopoulos’s property to access fire doors on Willow Tex’s building. The alleged easement stemmed from a 1966 certificate of occupancy application where Dimacopoulos’s predecessor in title, Davis, allowed Willow Tex’s predecessor to use the driveway for exits. After Dimacopoulos obstructed access to the fire doors, Willow Tex sued, claiming easements by express grant, implication, and necessity. The trial court found an easement by express grant. The Appellate Division modified the judgment. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the certificate of occupancy created a revocable license, not a permanent easement.
Facts
Willow Tex, Inc. owned a factory building (parcel No. 1) adjacent to George Dimacopoulos’s property (parcel No. 2). The factory had fire doors opening onto Dimacopoulos’s property, which were necessary for access to a public road. In 1966, when parcel No. 2 was owned by Davis, who was also the lessor of parcel No. 1 (through his company Sida Realty Corp.), Davis joined Sida’s application for a certificate of occupancy, proposing to legalize exits including the fire doors. Dimacopoulos purchased his parcel in 1976, and Willow Tex purchased its parcel in 1980. A dispute arose when Willow Tex’s tenant tried using the fire doors, and Dimacopoulos blocked them.
Procedural History
Willow Tex and its tenant sued Dimacopoulos, seeking damages and a declaration of an easement based on implied grant, prescription, and necessity. The trial court amended the pleadings to conform to the proof and decreed an easement by express grant, ordering Dimacopoulos to keep his driveway gate unlocked. The Appellate Division modified the judgment, requiring the gate to be unlocked at all times. Dimacopoulos appealed to the Court of Appeals based on the issue of easement by express grant.
Issue(s)
Whether the joint certificate of occupancy application constituted an express grant of easement over Dimacopoulos’s property for access to the fire doors on Willow Tex’s building.
Holding
No, because the certificate of occupancy, at most, created a license that terminated upon the transfer of parcel No. 2, not an easement by express grant.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals reasoned that an easement by express grant requires a written document with clear language demonstrating the grantor’s intent to create a permanent easement, not a revocable license. The court emphasized that the writing must unequivocally establish the grantor’s intention to grant a permanent use of the servient estate to the dominant estate. “The policy of the law favoring unrestricted use of realty requires that where there is any ambiguity as to the permanence of the restriction to be imposed on the servient estate, the right of use should be deemed a license, revocable at will by the grantor, rather than an easement.” The court found that Davis’s participation in the certificate of occupancy application primarily benefited his own corporation and did not demonstrate an intent to grant a permanent easement to future tenants of parcel No. 1. At most, it created a license that terminated when Davis sold parcel No. 2. The court also agreed with the trial court’s rejection of an easement by implied grant.