Monica Hulett et al. v. Terri Korb
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Real property—scope and width of a prescriptive easement for ingress and egress and associated maintenance rights.
After establishing a prescriptive easement in earlier proceedings, Supreme Court set the roadway width at between 10 and 11 feet, extended a 4–5 foot maintenance area beyond both sides of the roadbed, allowed culvert maintenance, incidental driveway uses, and enjoined trenching without consent, while denying compensatory damages (awarding only nominal trespass damages).
The appellate court modified the judgment to fix the easement width at 10 feet by stipulation and clarified that the prescriptive easement area is limited to the roadbed; it rejected any grant of a prescriptive easement beyond the roadbed but authorized maintenance rights extending up to five feet on both sides. It also confirmed the easement benefits both of plaintiffs’ parcels.
Width was resolved by the parties’ stipulation; the benefit to both parcels was controlled by law of the case from the 2019 order affirmed in 2021; evidence and common-law principles permit reasonable maintenance incidental to a prescriptive easement (e.g., McMillan v Cronin; Restatement of Property), while the proof did not support compensatory damages. The court also took judicial notice of county parcel data under CPLR 4532-b [admissibility/judicial notice of website content]. The action was brought under RPAPL article 15 [quiet title/declaration of interests in real property], and the initial jury verdict had been set aside under CPLR 4404(a) [trial court may set aside a jury verdict and direct judgment].
Background
Neighbors in Saratoga County disputed use of a roughly 250-foot stretch of Rodgers Lane crossing defendant’s property. Plaintiffs, who have lived on parcel 1 since 1986 and acquired adjacent parcel 2 in 1995, used Rodgers Lane continuously to access their home. After defendant installed gates and posts, plaintiffs brought an RPAPL article 15 action seeking a prescriptive easement. In 2016, Supreme Court (Nolan, J.) found open, notorious, and continuous use for over 10 years and a presumption of hostility, sending only hostility to a jury. The jury found for defendant, but in 2019 Supreme Court set aside the verdict under CPLR 4404(a) and directed judgment declaring a prescriptive easement; the Third Department affirmed in 2021. A later bench trial before Supreme Court (Kupferman, J.) set the width and scope of the easement, leading to this appeal.
Lower Court Decision
Supreme Court (Kupferman, J.) held the easement was between 10 and 11 feet wide; granted plaintiffs an additional 4–5 foot maintenance area beyond both sides of the roadbed for snowplowing, mowing, and trimming; allowed maintenance/replacement of two culverts; recognized ordinary residential driveway uses including deliveries, emergency vehicle access, temporary parking for maintenance, and pulling aside to pass; enjoined plaintiffs from excavating or trenching on roadway shoulders without defendant’s permission; denied defendant’s compensatory damages claim for lack of sufficient proof, awarding only nominal trespass damages for 2010/2011 work.
Appellate Division Reversal
Modified and affirmed. The court declared the roadway easement is 10 feet wide (per the parties’ stipulation), the prescriptive easement area extends only to the width of the roadbed (no prescriptive easement in the shoulders), and plaintiffs have the right to perform necessary maintenance (brush removal, lawn mowing, snow plowing) up to five feet on both sides of the roadbed. It also held the easement serves ingress and egress for both parcels under law of the case. The denial of compensatory damages was affirmed for lack of evidentiary support.
Legal Significance
Clarifies that while a prescriptive easement’s spatial extent is limited to the traveled way, reasonable ancillary maintenance rights outside the roadbed may be authorized to effectuate safe use. Confirms application of law-of-the-case to the benefited dominant estate(s) and recognizes judicial notice of official online parcel maps under CPLR 4532-b. Reinforces the requirement of competent proof for compensatory damages claims in property disputes.
A prescriptive easement over a roadway is confined to the roadbed’s width, but courts may grant necessary maintenance rights up to five feet on both sides to ensure safe and practical use; benefits to multiple contiguous parcels can be fixed by law of the case.