Lewis v. Young, 92 N.Y.2d 443 (1998)
A landowner burdened by an express easement of ingress and egress may relocate it, without the easement holder’s consent, so long as the easement holder’s right of access and ingress is not impaired.
Summary
This case addresses whether a landowner can relocate an easement holder’s right of way without consent. The New York Court of Appeals held that a landowner can relocate a right of way for ingress and egress, provided the easement holder’s right of passage is not impaired. Roger Lewis sued Neda Young, seeking to compel her to restore a driveway to its original location. The court reversed the lower court’s order to restore the driveway and remitted the case to the trial court to determine factual issues about impairment of the easement.
Facts
Roger Lewis and Neda Young owned adjacent parcels originally owned by the Browns. In 1956, the Browns divided their land, granting easements to the parcels sold, as they lacked direct road access. The Jaffe deed (later acquired by Lewis) included a right of way over the Brown’s driveway. Young purchased the Brown property in 1990, planning renovations that included a tennis court partially situated on the existing driveway. Young relocated the driveway, and Lewis objected, leading to the lawsuit.
Procedural History
Lewis sued Young seeking a declaration of rights and an injunction to restore the original driveway. The Supreme Court granted summary judgment to Lewis, ordering Young to restore the driveway. The Appellate Division affirmed, holding that the easement’s location was fixed by 37 years of use. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s order.
Issue(s)
Whether a landowner, absent explicit prohibition in the easement agreement, can relocate an easement holder’s right of way over the burdened premises without the easement holder’s consent.
Holding
Yes, because in the absence of a demonstrated intent to provide otherwise, a landowner can move a right of way for ingress and egress, as long as the change does not frustrate the parties’ intent, increase the burden on the easement holder, or significantly lessen the utility of the right of way.
Court’s Reasoning
The court reasoned that express easements are defined by the parties’ intent. When an easement grants only ingress and egress, it’s the *right of passage*, not the physical passageway itself, that is granted. Quoting Grafton v. Moir, 130 NY 465, 472, the court stated that “‘A right of way along a private road belonging to another person does not give the [easement holder] a right that the road shall be in no respect altered or the width decreased, for his right * * * is merely a right to pass with the convenience to which he has been accustomed.’” Therefore, landowners can narrow, cover, gate, or fence off easements, so long as the easement holder’s passage is not impaired. The court established a balancing test: landowners can relocate a right of way if they bear the relocation expense and the change doesn’t frustrate the easement’s purpose, increase the burden, or lessen its utility. The court found no intent in the original deed to deny the landowner’s right to relocate the driveway. The indefinite description of the right of way suggested an allowance for relocation. The court remitted the case to determine if the relocation impaired Lewis’s right of ingress and egress.