Opinion
Argued May 14, 1999
June 28, 1999
In an action, inter alia, to enjoin the defendant from blocking access to a purported driveway easement owned by the plaintiff, the defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vaughan, J.), entered May 12, 1998, as granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment enjoining him from closing, obstructing, or otherwise restricting the plaintiff's use of the driveway.
Barbara H. Katsos, New York, N.Y., for appellant.
Mulholland Knapp, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Robert P. Knapp of counsel), for respondent.
FRED T. SANTUCCI, J.P., DANIEL F. LUCIANO, ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, NANCY E. SMITH, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The extent of an easement that is claimed under a grant is generally limited by the language of the grant, as a grantor may create an extensive or a limited easement ( see, Ledley v. D.J. N.A. Mgt., 228 A.D.2d 482; Ciano v. Smolan, 225 A.D.2d 727; Mandia v. King Lbr. Plywood Co., 179 A.D.2d 150). The terms of the grant are to be construed most strongly against the grantor in ascertaining the extent of the easement ( see, Ledley v. D.J. N.A. Mgt., supra; Circuit City Stores v. Muss, 151 A.D.2d 714, 715). The facts of this case support the Supreme Court's determination that the grant gives the plaintiff an easement to use a driveway located on the defendant's property. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment enjoining the defendant.
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.