Opinion
January 8, 1996
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dunkin, J.).
Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, with costs, and so much of the order as directed the defendants to restore the plot of grass located on the easement is vacated.
The defendants hired a construction crew to repave a common driveway located on an easement between the defendants' house and the plaintiff's house. Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, the Supreme Court erred in directing the defendants to restore the plot of grass located on the easement since the grass plot interfered with or otherwise frustrated the easement. The defendants, having a right of passage for vehicles over the easement, have a right to maintain it in a reasonable condition for such use (see, Missionary Socy. v Evrotas, 256 N.Y. 86). Thus, under the circumstances of this case, the plaintiff has no right to maintain a grass plot on the easement. Balletta, J.P., Rosenblatt, Pizzuto, Joy and Altman, JJ., concur.