40 N.Y.2d 1060 (1976)
When a state-created easement effectively deprives a property owner of reasonable access to a portion of their land, the state must compensate the owner for the resulting damages, especially if the easement’s terms give the state broad control over the owner’s use of the affected property.
Summary
The State of New York appropriated a permanent easement across Kravec’s property to construct a drainage ditch. The easement separated a portion of Kravec’s land from a public street, potentially landlocking it. The easement’s terms allowed Kravec to use the property as long as it didn’t interfere with the easement, effectively granting the State veto power over any usage. Kravec sued, arguing the easement landlocked the property. The Court of Appeals held that the easement effectively landlocked the property due to the State’s broad control and the lack of a guaranteed right of access, thus requiring the State to compensate Kravec for the loss.
Facts
The State of New York acquired a permanent easement across property owned by Stephen Kravec.
The easement was 21 feet wide and intended for the construction and maintenance of a drainage ditch.
The easement bisected Kravec’s property, separating 9.217 acres from Bridge Street.
The terms of the easement reserved to the owner the right to use the property, provided such use did not interfere with the State’s easement rights.
The property was zoned for commercial development.
Procedural History
Kravec’s estate filed a claim against the State for damages resulting from the taking.
The Court of Claims determined that the easement did not explicitly deny the owner’s right to cross it and awarded damages only for the direct taking and the cost of building a bridge over the ditch.
The Appellate Division affirmed the Court of Claims’ judgment.
The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the easement effectively landlocked the property, and remitted the case to the Court of Claims to determine damages accordingly.
Issue(s)
Whether the reservation clause in the easement agreement implicitly granted the property owner an untrammeled right of access across the easement to the landlocked portion of the property.
Whether the easement, due to its terms and practical effect, landlocked a portion of the claimant’s property, thus entitling the claimant to compensation for the loss of access and value.
Holding
No, because the reservation clause did not guarantee a right of access and gave the State a virtual veto power over any use of the property by the owner.
Yes, because the easement, in effect, landlocked the inner portion of the property due to the State’s control over its use, thereby requiring the State to compensate the owner accordingly.
Court’s Reasoning
The court reasoned that the easement’s broad terms and the condition of non-interference gave the State substantial control over the property owner’s use.
The reservation clause, which allowed the owner to use the property only if it didn’t interfere with the State’s easement rights, effectively gave the State the power to determine whether any proposed use was permissible.
The court distinguished this case from Clark v. State of New York and Jafco Realty Corp. v. State of New York, because those cases involved easements with an explicit reservation of access, which was absent here.
The court cited Wolfe v. State of New York, emphasizing that absent an express grant of access, any action by the claimants on the easement may be deemed by the State to interfere with its rights; and any claimed implied right of access under these circumstances is too tenuous to merit consideration.
The dissenting opinion argued that the reservation of rights necessarily carried with it the right to build a bridge over the State’s drainage ditch and that the State was willing to permit construction. The dissent asserted that the majority’s decision awards the claimant for a taking that did not occur.
The majority countered that the state cannot take more land than it needs, then reduce damages later by offering some rights back after the taking.
The court emphasized that damages are fixed and measured at the time of the taking. Because the easement effectively landlocked the property, the state had to pay damages.