You are here: / / A SUBSEQUENT DEED INCLUDING THE EASEMENT WAS A VALID CORRECTION DEED; THE...

A SUBSEQUENT DEED INCLUDING THE EASEMENT WAS A VALID CORRECTION DEED; THE STRANGER TO THE DEED RULE DID NOT APPLY BECAUSE THE DEEDS WITH THE EASEMENT CAME FROM THE SAME GRANTOR; THE EASEMENT WAS THEREFORE VALID AND DEFENDANTS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ENJOINED FROM CLEARING IT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined a deed was correction deed which included an easement not mentioned in the prior deed. The Second Department also held that the “strange to the deed” rule did not apply because the deeds with the easement came from the same grantor. Therefore the easement was enforceable and defendants should not have been enjoined from clearing trees and other obstructions from the walkway:

… [A]lthough the 1972 deed does not use the phrase “correction deed” or similar phrases, and it does not reference the 1971 deed or the prior conveyance, the 1972 deed is a deed of correction that superseded the 1971 deed … . * * *

We disagree with the Supreme Court’s determination that the easement was void ab initio under the stranger to the deed rule … . … Since the dominant Lots … and the servient … shared a common grantor at the time the reservation was made, the stranger to the deed rule does not apply … . Garson v Tarmy, 2020 NY Slip Op 06104, Second Dept 10-28-20

 

You might also like
SNOW-REMOVAL COMPANY NOT LIABLE TO PLAINTIFF BECAUSE PLAINTIFF WAS NOT A PARTY TO THE SNOW-REMOVAL CONTRACT; NO NEED FOR DEFENDANT TO ADDRESS ESPINAL EXCEPTIONS IN ITS SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION IF THE EXCEPTIONS ARE NOT PLED BY THE PLAINTIFF.
THE BIOLOGICAL FATHER’S CONSENT TO THE ADOPTION OF HIS CHILD WAS NOT REQUIRED BECAUSE HE FAILED TO SUPPORT THE CHILD DESPITE THE MEANS TO DO SO (SECOND DEPT). ​
PETITIONER, WHO IS MILDLY AUTISTIC, DEMONSTRATED (1) HE IS NOT DISABLED WITHIN THE MEANING OF SURROGATE’S COURT PROCEDURE ACT (SCPA) ARTICLE 17-A AND (2) HE UNDERSTANDS AND IS ABLE TO MANAGE HIS FINANCIAL AFFAIRS; THE PETITION TO DISSOLVE THE GUARDIANSHIP OF HIS PROPERTY SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT SOLE SHAREHOLDER OF DEFENDANT CORPORATION WAS NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE ACTION AGAINST HIM PREMISED UPON PIERCING THE CORPORATE VEIL, THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE WARRANTY PROVISIONS OF THE CONTRACT WERE VIOLATED AND WHETHER DEFENDANT CORPORATION WAS STRIPPED OF ASSETS SUCH THAT IT COULD NOT MEET ITS CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS (SECOND DEPT).
Questions of Fact About Whether Amusement Ride On Sidewalk Created an Inherently Dangerous Condition and Whether the Hazard Was Latent or Open and Obvious
NO CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT A TORT CAUSE OF ACTION IN NEW YORK.
County Not Entitled to Dismissal of Suit Seeking Refund of Taxes Declared Wrongly Collected by the Court of Appeals
Criteria for Vicarious Liability of Hospital for Actions of Non-Employee Physician Explained (Not Met Here)

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

ALTHOUGH INSURANCE LAW 3420(d)(2) REQUIRING TIMELY NOTICE OF THE DISCLAIMER... THE 90-DAY NOTICE WAS DEFECTIVE; THEREFORE THE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED...