## Facts

- In 1979, Doyle conveyed by deed to his neighbor Abbatiello a right-of-way across Doyle’s property “for the purpose of constructing a driveway,” with Abbatiello to construct and maintain the driveway.
- Abbatiello never constructed the contemplated driveway.
- Doyle later conveyed portions of the servient property over which the right-of-way ran to third parties.
- Abbatiello’s benefitted parcel was eventually conveyed to the plaintiffs as successors in interest.
- After plaintiffs acquired the benefitted parcel, Doyle interfered with plaintiffs’ attempted use of the claimed right-of-way.
- Doyle contended the 1979 grant was only a personal license to Abbatiello, and alternatively that any easement was forfeited or extinguished because the driveway was never constructed.
- Plaintiffs brought an RPAPL article 15 action seeking a declaration of their right and an injunction against interference.
- The trial court granted summary judgment to plaintiffs, declared plaintiffs’ rights in the right-of-way, and enjoined Doyle from interference.

## Issues

1. Whether the 1979 deed created an easement appurtenant running with the benefitted land, or only a personal license to the named grantee.
2. Whether the failure to construct the driveway described in the deed extinguished or forfeited the granted right-of-way.

## Decision

- The Appellate Division affirmed summary judgment for plaintiffs.
- The court held the deed created an easement appurtenant, not a personal license, and the benefit passed to plaintiffs as successors to the benefitted parcel.
- The court held the easement was not extinguished by non-construction of the driveway absent clear, unmistakable conditional language providing for termination or forfeiture.

## Legal Principles

- A right-of-way granted by deed for the benefit of adjacent or identified land is generally construed as an easement appurtenant that runs with the benefitted land, rather than a personal, revocable license.
- A clause describing the purpose of an easement (e.g., driveway construction) and assigning construction/maintenance duties is ordinarily treated as a covenant regulating use and maintenance, not a condition terminating the easement.
- Forfeiture or termination of a property interest based on a condition will not be found without clear, unmistakable language making the interest conditional and providing for loss upon noncompliance.
- Successors in interest to the dominant estate may enforce an easement appurtenant against the owner of the servient estate and may obtain declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent interference.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed a declaration and injunction recognizing plaintiffs’ right to use a deeded right-of-way as an easement appurtenant that transferred with the benefitted land, and it rejected extinguishment based solely on the grantee’s failure to construct the contemplated driveway because the deed did not clearly impose a forfeiting condition.


Stratis v. Doyle, 176 A.D.2d 1096, 575 N.Y.S.2d 400 (App. Div. 3d Dep’t 1991)