June 24, 2024 – The Supreme Court, Nassau County (Hon. James P. McCormack), issued a decision after trial in favor of the plaintiff easement holders, in Papalcure v. Canarick, Index. No. 612791/17.
The plaintiffs in the action, Papalcure and Schein, claimed to be the holders of an easement of the beach and bluff properties owned by the defendant, Paul Canarick, in the “Red Spring Colony” area of Glen Cove, NY. The land had been set aside by the original developers, the Red Spring Land Co., in the late 1800s, as a common area for use and enjoyment of the subdivision owners. In the mid-1900s, predecessor owners of both the plaintiffs’ and defendant’s properties went to trial over similar claims, and the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff’s predecessors, in a case called Loening v. Red Spring Land Co., 198 Misc. 151 (1949). Two appeals courts upheld the Loening decision — first the Appellate Division in 1950 (277 A.D. 1050) and then the Court of Appeals in 1951 (302 N.Y. 934). Over 60 years later, the defendant claimed that he owned the property free and clear of any easement claims, in spite of the Loening decision. He proceeded to block the plaintiffs’ access to the property, planted trees and shrubs to cut off their views of the water, and accused them of trespassing when they used the beach and bluffs as they had for many years.
On behalf of the plaintiffs, EHADP brought an action against the defendant in 2017, to obtain a declaration that the plaintiffs’ easement rights were valid, to enjoin the defendant from interfering with those rights, and to obtain damages for the defendant’s interference with the plaintiffs’ use and enjoyment of the easement. The case reached trial in the summer of 2023, where it was tried over the course of nearly two weeks.
Justice McCormack’s Decision After Trial ruled in favor of the plaintiffs on all claims.
As to the existence of the easement, Justice McCormack found that the “outcome of this case is clear from the evidence presented. Plaintiffs presented clear proof of the existence of the easement, and their use of it until Canarick began putting up impediments,” which not only prevented Plaintiffs from physically using the easement, but included “plantings that would completely block the water views from the Papalcure and Schein properties, while at the same time ensuring his own unimpeded view.” Justice McCormack acknowledged the “unusual benefit of having a Court of Appeals decision directly related to these properties finding the easement existed,” and he declined the defendant’s invitation to find that it did not have to abide by the Court of Appeals’ precedent.
Justice McCormack also rejected the defendant’s claim to have extinguished the easement by adverse possession, finding that it “is clear that the property over which the easements are claimed was accessible, even if Canarick made it more inconvenient for Plaintiffs to do so.”
As to the easements, the decision concluded that the plaintiffs were entitled to a declaratory judgment that their easement exists and that the defendant interfered with the plaintiffs’ right of access, as well as an injunction to direct the defendant to remove the fencing and plantings that impede the plaintiffs’ rights.
Last, Justice McCormack found that the plaintiffs also proved that the defendant’s interference with the plaintiffs’ use and enjoyment of their land constituted a private nuisance, entitling them to damages of over $300,000, and rising, until the impediments are removed.
