Carla Starcic v Charles D. Hardy

Annotate this Case
Starcic v Hardy 2006 NY Slip Op 05775 [31 AD3d 630] July 18, 2006 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. As corrected through Wednesday, September 20, 2006

Carla Starcic, Appellant,
v
Charles D. Hardy et al., Respondents.

—[*1]

In an action to enjoin the defendants from interfering with the installation of a water pipe under the surface of a private road and for a judgment declaring that the plaintiff has the right to install the water pipe, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Baisley, Jr., J.), dated July 20, 2005, which granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1) and (7).

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, and the complaint is reinstated.

The Supreme Court improperly determined that the plaintiff's deed was dispositive as to the extent of the easement over the defendants' property. "The owner of an easement has an interest in the land of another" (4 Powell on Real Property § 34.20 [1], at 34-185). "The extent of an easement claimed under a grant is generally determined by the language used in the grant" (Perillo v Credendino, 264 AD2d 473, 473 [1999]; see Hudson Val. Cablevision Corp. v 202 Devs., 185 AD2d 917, 920 [1992]). The easement at issue in this case was not, and could not have been, granted in the deed from the plaintiff's immediate predecessor to the plaintiff, because that deed could not unilaterally create an easement over the defendants' property where none existed previously. Indeed, the plaintiff contends that the easement appeared in the defendants' chain of title long before the plaintiff obtained title to her parcel. Consequently, the Supreme Court erred in granting the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1) and (7) solely on the basis of its examination of the plaintiff's deed. Crane, J.P., Spolzino, Fisher and Lunn, JJ., concur.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.