Confidentiality Language in Deeds will preclude Summary Judgment in Easement Disputes

Branching off from last month’s discussion of Summary Judgment (if you missed that click HERE), different causes of action will bring about different standards for what truly is triable question of fact. Disputes over easements, for example, look at multiple factors in determining issues of fact. Here is an section from my brief in a recent case involving this issue:

In actions involving easement disputes, the Court should determine if the language of the deed creates an easement, the intent of the parties, and the specific factual circumstances. Leaman v. McNamee, 58 A.D.3d 918, 919 (3d Dept. 2009) (summary judgment denied where there was conflicting extrinsic evidence). If the language of the deed itself is not specific as to the use of the easement, extrinsic evidence may be used to demonstrate the grantor’s intent. Albright v. Davey, 68 A.D.3d 1490, 1491 (3d Dept. 2009); Leaman, 58 A.D.3d at 920 (2009) (summary judgment denied), Jordan v. Vogel, 59 A.D.3d 919, 920 (3d Dept. 2009). In Eliopoulous v. Lake George Land Conservancy, Inc. , 50 A.D.3d 1231, 1232 (3d Dept. 2008), the Third Department held that “where the extrinsic evidence presented raises a question of fact, summary judgment is inappropriate.”

 

If you have any legal questions or need help with a deed or easement dispute, please contact Attorney Scott Lanin at (212) 764-7250 x 201 or use the contact form in the right sidebar.