Zotos v. Marketspan Corp.
720 N.Y.S.2d 705, 2000 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 565, 186 Misc.2d 795 (2000)
Rule of Law:
An instrument granting a permanent interest in land, such as the right to construct and maintain power lines, constitutes a valid easement when it uses language of 'grant,' refers to 'successors and assigns,' and does not reserve a right of revocation, even if the grantor's deed of ownership was not recorded, provided the easement itself was recorded and there is long-term physical presence providing notice.
Facts:
- Plaintiff Michael R. Zotos owns certain lots of real property.
- Charles Solomon obtained the property by tax deed dated January 10, 1969, for unpaid 1964-1965 taxes assessed to R. Fitzpatrick.
- Zotos acquired the property by deed dated April 26, 1991, from the executors of Charles Solomon's estate.
- Defendants Marketspan Corporation and LIPA maintain power lines over Zotos's property.
- The defendants' right to maintain these lines is based on a grant executed by James T. Fitzpatrick, recorded on November 18, 1925, in Suffolk County.
- This grant, in consideration of $25.00, conveyed 'the Right, Privilege and Authority, to construct, reconstruct, operate and maintain, its transmission lines' over specific lots, referenced 'successors and assigns,' and withheld no right of revocation.
- Zotos claims that James T. Fitzpatrick was not the owner of the premises and thus lacked authority to grant any rights, arguing the grant was merely a license, not an easement.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff Michael R. Zotos commenced an action in the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, pursuant to RPAPL article 15 for a declaratory judgment that defendants be barred from any claim to an easement upon his property.
- Plaintiff Michael R. Zotos filed a motion for summary judgment.
- Defendants Marketspan Corporation and LIPA filed a cross motion for summary judgment requesting dismissal of the complaint.
- The Supreme Court, Suffolk County, issued an order dated July 20, 1999, determining the summary judgment motions.
- Plaintiff Michael R. Zotos subsequently filed a motion for leave to renew and/or reargue his prior motion for summary judgment.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an instrument granting a permanent right to construct and maintain power lines constitute a valid easement, providing both actual and constructive notice, even if the grantor's deed of ownership was not recorded, or is it merely a revocable license?
Opinions:
Majority - John J.J. Jones, Jr., J.
Yes, an instrument granting a permanent right to construct and maintain power lines constitutes a valid easement, providing both actual and constructive notice, even if the grantor's deed of ownership was not recorded, because such a grant creates a permanent interest in land, not a mere license. The court distinguished an easement, which is an interest in real property, from a license, which is a mere personal privilege. An easement implies an interest in land created by a grant, is permanent, and typically assignable, whereas a license is personal, not assignable, and of limited duration. The document at issue used the word 'grant,' specifically referred to 'successors and assigns,' and withheld no right of revocation, all of which strongly indicated an intent to create an easement, not a license, consistent with precedent such as Stratis v Doyle. Furthermore, the easement contained an accurate description of the property. The recording of this easement, coupled with the long-term physical presence of power lines over the property, provided Zotos with both actual and constructive notice of the easement's existence and location, as supported by Millbrook Hunt v Smith. The court found that the apparent absence of a recorded deed of ownership in Fitzpatrick's name does not defeat the defendants' easement claim, distinguishing it from claims based on adverse possession which are subject to Real Property Law § 261, citing Pallone v New York Tel. Co. The defendants' claim rested on a recorded grant, not adverse possession. Thus, the defendants established a prima facie entitlement to summary judgment, which the plaintiff failed to rebut.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the critical distinction between an easement and a license, emphasizing the importance of specific language in the granting instrument and the intent of the parties. It establishes that a recorded easement, coupled with visible, long-standing use, provides sufficient notice to subsequent landowners, even if there's an unrecorded ownership deed in the grantor's chain of title. The ruling reinforces that a claim based on a recorded grant is distinct from one based on adverse possession, offering greater protection to utility easements that are properly recorded and openly exercised. This decision helps ensure the stability of property rights and the continuous operation of essential services relying on such easements.
