Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Anzalone v. Costantino
Citations: 145 A.D.3d 1236; 43 N.Y.S.3d 204Docket: 522591
Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York; December 7, 2016; New York; State Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
In the case of Joseph V. Anzalone Jr. v. Diana Costantino et al., the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, affirmed a lower court's decision regarding a dispute over an easement related to real property in Ulster County. Defendant Catherine Costantino holds a life estate, while the other defendants (Diana, Paul Costantino, and Kathleen Kouri) hold the remainder interest. The defendants possess an easement over the plaintiff's adjacent property, which allows access to garages via a driveway. However, a 1988 conveyance incorrectly described the easement's location. The plaintiff, who acquired his property in 2001 and was not involved in a 2005 attempt to correct the conveyance, made modifications to the driveway, including constructing a retaining wall in 2012, which the defendants claimed hindered their access. The plaintiff initiated legal action seeking a declaration that the easement was invalid or that he did not interfere with it, alongside requests for injunctive relief and damages. The Supreme Court conducted a nonjury trial and concluded that the 1988 conveyance indeed created an enforceable easement but was not clearly defined in its location. The court invalidated the 2005 correction attempt, determined that the plaintiff had not impaired the defendants' access, and established the easement boundaries along the current driveway. The court denied other relief sought by both parties. On appeal, the defendants argued that a new metes and bounds description should have been provided, but the court held that this argument was not preserved for review. The court also noted that any attempt to interpret the original conveyance's intended description would be speculative, thus affirming the lower court's judgment. Defendants possess a right-of-way over plaintiff's property; however, due to the absence of a specific description, the plaintiff can unilaterally relocate the right-of-way as long as it does not undermine the original intent, increase the burden on the easement holder, or significantly reduce the utility of the right-of-way. Testimony from both the plaintiff and his expert engineer established that the driveway was initially about 10 feet wide, suitable for the defendants' vehicle storage, and that after modifications, it expanded to 12 feet while still allowing adequate access for vehicles. The court found no impairment to the defendants' access, supporting the plaintiff's right to modify the driveway. Additionally, the defendants' claim for a prescriptive easement was dismissed, as their usage under an express easement does not constitute hostile or adverse use necessary for such a claim. The judgment was affirmed with costs.