Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status
From our private database of 19,800+ case briefs...

Simone v. Heidelberg

Court of Appeals of New York
877 N.E.2d 1288 (2007)


The parcels of property known as 157-159 Driggs and 163-165 Driggs are adjacent to each other. In 1933, the owners of each parcel created an easement. The owner of the dominant estate, 157-159 Driggs, obtained access to a portion of the servient estate, 163-165 Driggs Street, in order to access a garage located on the dominant estate. In 1978, the Accardos acquired both parcels. In 1982, the Accardos subdivided 163-165 Driggs into two. They transferred one of the subdivided parcels, 163 Driggs, to the Webers in a deed that did not reference the easement. In 1984, the Accardos transferred 157-159 Driggs to the Corrados. The terms of this deed did reference the easement, referring to 163 Driggs as the servient estate. In 1993, the Webers conveyed 163 Driggs to the plaintiffs. Although the deed did not reference the easement, the plaintiffs were aware that an easement had previously existed. In 1996, the Corrados conveyed 157-159 Driggs to the defendants in a deed that referenced the easement. But by 2003, the garage on the defendants’ property was no longer used for storing cars, in part because a tree and a fence on the defendants’ property blocked access to the garage. Additionally, the Webers had constructed a permanent deck on the servient property over part of the easement area. In December 2003, the defendants removed the tree and fence in order to make use of the easement. The plaintiffs brought suit, seeking a declaration that the easement was unenforceable. The defendants counterclaimed for a declaration that the easement was enforceable or, in the alternative, that the easement survived by necessity. The Supreme Court granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, ruling that the easement had extinguished when the Accardos became the common owners of both parcels, and that it had not been re-created because the deed transferring the servient estate did not reference the easement. The Appellate Division reversed, stating that, although the easement was extinguished by merger, it had been re-created because the deed conveying the dominant estate referenced the easement and the owners of the servient estate were aware of its existence.

Rule of Law


Holding and Reasoning (Ciparick, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 507,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 507,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 19,800 briefs, keyed to 985 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Questions & Answers

Have a question about this case?

Sign up for a free 7-day trial and ask it

Sign up for a FREE 7-day trial