## Facts

- Plaintiff owned lots 96 and 97 in a subdivision and acquired title by deeds describing the lots by reference to a recorded 1926 subdivision map.
- The map depicted “paper streets” (mapped but unopened roads), including Hampton Road abutting plaintiff’s lots and connecting to Hawkwood Avenue.
- A segment of the mapped route crossed land owned by defendant Jackson; other defendants were neighboring subdivision lot owners.
- Plaintiff sought to build a residence but was denied zoning approval for lack of recognized access; he was directed to obtain easement rights over the mapped paper streets.
- Neighboring owners refused to recognize or grant access rights, prompting plaintiff to sue for a declaration of an easement and related equitable relief.
- Plaintiff moved for summary judgment; certain defendants cross-moved to dismiss, arguing the claim had to be brought in strict RPAPL article 15 form.

## Issues

1. Whether the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, or the complaint was fatally defective, because plaintiff did not plead the action in strict RPAPL article 15 form.
2. Whether deeds referencing a recorded subdivision map created an implied easement for ingress and egress over abutting paper streets, and the extent of any such easement.
3. Whether summary judgment was warranted against Jackson and whether claims against the other lot-owner defendants could proceed.

## Decision

- The appellate court held the trial court had subject-matter jurisdiction and the complaint stated a cognizable claim despite not tracking RPAPL article 15’s technical pleading requirements.
- The court modified the order to grant plaintiff partial summary judgment declaring an implied easement of access over the mapped route running along Hampton Road from plaintiff’s lots to its intersection with Hawkwood Avenue, including across Jackson’s property.
- The court dismissed the complaint as against the other lot-owner defendants (including the Youngs and Deegan).
- The matter was remitted to the trial court to determine appropriate relief related to interference with the declared easement (e.g., injunctive relief and/or damages).

## Legal Principles

- A conveyance describing land by reference to a recorded subdivision map that shows streets abutting the parcel generally carries an implied easement over those streets for access, even if the streets are unopened “paper roads.”
- In New York, the implied access easement is generally limited to the mapped street segment necessary to reach the next intersecting street or public way, not the entire network of mapped streets.
- A pleading seeking a declaration of an easement is not jurisdictionally barred merely because it does not conform to RPAPL article 15’s technical form, so long as it alleges a justiciable controversy and states a cause of action within the court’s authority.
- Summary judgment is appropriate where the deed/map evidence establishes the easement as a matter of law and the opposing party fails to raise a material factual dispute or a legally sufficient defense.

## Conclusion

The court recognized an implied easement of ingress and egress created by deed references to a recorded subdivision map, limited the easement to the route needed to reach the next intersecting street, rejected a technical RPAPL article 15 pleading objection as nonjurisdictional, granted partial summary judgment against Jackson, dismissed claims against other neighbors, and remitted for determination of appropriate remedies.


De Ruscio v. Jackson, 565 N.Y.S.2d 593 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep’t 1991)