Monica Hulett et al. v Terri Korb
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Real property—scope and width of a prescriptive easement over a private roadway, including incidental maintenance rights and application of law-of-the-case.
After a bench trial limited to width and scope, Supreme Court (Kupferman, J.) fixed the roadway easement at 10–11 feet; allowed an additional 4–5 feet on each side for maintenance; permitted culvert maintenance/replacement; recognized ordinary residential uses (deliveries, emergency access, temporary pull-offs for maintenance and to let vehicles pass); enjoined trenching/excavation on shoulders without permission; denied compensatory damages for insufficient proof; and recognized the easement as serving ingress/egress to both of plaintiffs' parcels.
The Appellate Division modified to: (1) set the easement width at 10 feet (per the parties’ stipulation), (2) clarify that the prescriptive easement itself extends only to the width of the roadbed (no prescriptive easement in the shoulders), and (3) correct any limitation that confined maintenance to only one side by expressly authorizing necessary maintenance up to five feet on both sides of the roadbed. All other aspects—including that the easement serves both parcels and the denial of compensatory damages—were affirmed.
Width was set by the parties’ stipulation; the record and prior rulings (law of the case) established the easement serves both parcels; prescriptive rights do not extend beyond the roadbed, though reasonable maintenance incidental to the easement is permitted; and defendant’s damages proof was insufficient. The court also took judicial notice of the county parcel map under CPLR 4532-b [authorizing judicial notice of certain electronic maps and geospatial data].
Background
Plaintiffs own two adjoining parcels in the Town of Saratoga. Since 1986 they accessed their residence via Rodgers Lane, including approximately 250 feet crossing defendant’s land. After defendant installed gates/posts, plaintiffs commenced an RPAPL article 15 action [proceeding to determine claims to real property] to declare a prescriptive easement. In 2016, Supreme Court (Nolan, J.) found plaintiffs established open, notorious, and continuous use for 10 years, creating a presumption of hostility, and set a jury trial on hostility. Although the jury found for defendant, in 2019 the court granted plaintiffs’ CPLR 4404(a) motion [authorizing the court to set aside a jury verdict and direct judgment] and awarded a prescriptive easement; the Appellate Division affirmed in 2021. A subsequent bench trial (Kupferman, J.) addressed only the width and scope of the easement.
Lower Court Decision
Supreme Court (Kupferman, J.) set the roadway easement at 10–11 feet wide; granted a ‘gross easement area’ extending 4–5 feet beyond each side of the roadbed for necessary maintenance (mowing, trimming, snowplowing); allowed maintenance/replacement of two culverts under the road; permitted ordinary residential uses (deliveries, emergency vehicles, temporary roadside parking for maintenance, and pulling aside to pass); enjoined plaintiffs from trenching/excavating roadway shoulders without defendant’s permission; denied defendant’s request for compensatory damages over $10,000 for lack of documentary support; and awarded nominal damages for a 2010/2011 trespass. The court described the easement as for ingress/egress to both parcels.
Appellate Division Reversal
Modified and, as modified, affirmed. The court declared: (1) width is 10 feet (per the parties’ stipulation); (2) the prescriptive easement area is limited to the width of the roadbed and does not include the shoulders; and (3) plaintiffs have the right to perform necessary maintenance (brush removal, mowing, snowplowing) on both sides of the roadbed, extending up to five feet on either side, to ensure safe passage and upkeep. It rejected defendant’s challenge to the easement benefiting both parcels under law-of-the-case and judicially noticed county parcel maps (CPLR 4532-b). Denial of compensatory damages was upheld for insufficient evidentiary basis.
Legal Significance
Clarifies that while a prescriptive easement is confined to the established roadbed, reasonable and necessary maintenance incidental to use may extend beyond the traveled way to ensure safe and effective enjoyment. Affirms application of law-of-the-case to prevent relitigation of the easement’s beneficiary parcels. Confirms the court’s authority to take judicial notice of reliable digital parcel maps (CPLR 4532-b) and underscores that damages must be supported by competent proof.
A prescriptive roadway easement is limited to the roadbed’s width, but the holder may conduct necessary maintenance up to five feet on both sides for safe use; prior appellate rulings control the scope (law-of-the-case), and stipulated dimensions bind the parties.