Plaintiff bought a property in 1998; her deed included an easement retained by the vendor to permit access across its driveway to the loading dock of its then-neighboring warehouse “…for the purpose of permitting ingress and egress of persons and motor vehicles.…” Before 2012, Plaintiff was allowed to traverse Vendor’s driveway to park in the rear of her building.
Vendor sold the warehouse in 2012 to Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C.’s clients who developed the property as a high-end residential condo; the former driveway was converted to use as a courtyard/rear access for unit owners.
Plaintiff sought to extinguish the easement since its former purpose had ceased and sought the right to cross Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C.’s clients’ courtyard to reach the rear of her property either under an easement by necessity or an easement by implication.
Following a two day bench trial in Kings County Supreme Court, the Court held that the easement had not been extinguished, that the area could be used “… for any legal purpose [clients] see fit,” and that Plaintiff had no right to cross over the clients’ property.
Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C.’s clients were represented by Partner Colin E. Kaufman.