Opinion
May 5, 1997
Appeal from Supreme Court, Rockland County (Rudolph, J.),
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.
The Supreme Court properly granted the defendants' cross motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint ( see, Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557). "It is fundamental that where the title in fee to both the dominant and servient tenements become vested in one person, an easement is extinguished [by merger]" ( Castle Assocs. v. Schwartz, 63 A.D.2d 481; see also, Will v. Gates, 226 A.D.2d 366, lv granted 88 N.Y.2d 816; Seebaugh v. Borruso, 220 A.D.2d 573; Perry-Gething Found. v. Stinson, 218 A.D.2d 791; Riccio v. De Marco, 188 A.D.2d 847). In such a circumstance, the easement terminates because the party in whom the interests coincide may freely utilize the servient tenement as its owner. Therefore, the easement or restriction no longer serves any function ( Stilbell Realty Corp. v Cullen, 43 A.D.2d 966, 967). Here, when Yale Rapkin, the plaintiffs' predecessor-in-interest, acquired ownership of both the dominant and servient tenements, the easements were extinguished by merger. Moreover, the easements were not renewed in any subsequent conveyances.
We have examined the plaintiffs' remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.
Santucci, J.P., Joy, McGinity and Luciano, JJ., concur.