Green v. Mann, 63 N.Y.2d 112 (1984)

An easement appurtenant to a specific parcel of land cannot be extended to benefit other parcels subsequently acquired by the easement holder, especially when the original grant expressly prohibits enlargement of the easement.

Summary

Green sought a declaration to extend an easement appurtenant to one parcel of land (16B-13) to two additional, contiguous parcels (16B-2 and 16C-1) they later acquired. The easement, a right of way over Palmer Lane West, was initially granted by a common grantor, Gulesian, to Green’s predecessor for parcel 16B-13. The New York Court of Appeals held that the easement could not be enlarged to benefit the subsequently acquired parcels because they were not part of the original dominant tenement and because the deed conveying a tenancy in common in Palmer Lane West expressly prohibited enlargement of the easement.

Facts

Plaintiffs (Green) owned three contiguous parcels of land: 16B-13, 16B-2, and 16C-1. Parcel 16B-13 had an easement over Palmer Lane West, a private road owned in common by Green and Defendants (Mann). This easement was granted by Alice Gulesian, the common grantor, to the predecessor in title of parcel 16B-13. Green acquired parcels 16B-2 and 16C-1 after acquiring 16B-13. Parcels 16B-2 and 16C-1 originally had a right of way to a public highway (Virginia Lane), which Green relinquished upon acquiring those parcels. The deed conveying the joint interest in Palmer Lane West contained a restriction stating that the easement right of each party “is not hereby abrogated, enlarged or restricted”.

Procedural History

Green filed a declaratory judgment action seeking to establish the right to use the easement over Palmer Lane West for all three parcels. The lower court ruled against Green, and Green appealed. The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court’s decision. Green then appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

1. Whether an easement appurtenant to one parcel of land can be extended to benefit other parcels subsequently acquired by the easement holder, when those parcels were not part of the original grant.
2. Whether a tenancy in common in a private road confers the right to unilaterally create a new easement for the benefit of property to which the original easement was not appurtenant.

Holding

1. No, because “the owner of the dominant tenement may not subject the servient tenement to servitude or use in connection with other premises to which the easement is not appurtenant”.
2. No, because an owner may not unilaterally, and without the consent of the other owners, subject property held in common to an easement in favor of other property either owned by him alone or third parties.

Court’s Reasoning

The court reasoned that the easement granted by Gulesian was specifically appurtenant to parcel 16B-13. The express language in the deed conveying the tenancy in common in Palmer Lane West prohibited the enlargement of the easement. Applying the established rule that an easement cannot be expanded to benefit land beyond the original dominant tenement, the court held that Green’s subsequent acquisition of parcels 16B-2 and 16C-1 did not entitle Green to use the easement for those parcels. The court cited McCullough v. Broad Exch. Co., 101 App Div 566, 572, affd 184 NY 592, stating, “the owner of the dominant tenement may not subject the servient tenement to servitude or use in connection with other premises to which the easement is not appurtenant”. Furthermore, the court stated that Green’s tenancy in common of Palmer Lane West did not allow them to unilaterally create a new easement. Citing Wilson v Ford, 209 NY 186, the court emphasized that an owner cannot subject property held in common to an easement without the consent of the other owners. The court distinguished the case from situations involving the creation of interests in real property, holding that the restriction on the enlargement of the easement was binding even without Green’s signature on the deed, as acceptance of the deed and possession of the property bound Green to the covenants therein.