It is inseparable from the land and a grant of the land carries with it the grant of the easement" (Will v Gates, 89 NY2d 778, 783, 658 NYS2d 900 [1997]). An easement appurtenant occurs when the easement is conveyed in a writing, subscribed by the creator of the easement, which burdens the servient estate for the benefit of the dominant estate (Djoganopoulos v Polkes, 95 AD3d 933, 935, 944 NYS2d 217 [2d Dept 2012]; Bogart v Roven, 8 AD3d 600, 601, 780 NYS2d 355 [2d Dept 2004]; Green v Mann, 237 AD2d 566, 566-567, 655 NYS2d 627 [2d Dept 1997]). When the dominant estate is transferred, the easement passes to the subsequent owner through appurtenance clauses, even if there is no specific mention of it in the deed (see Djoganopoulos v Polkes, 95 AD3d 933, 944 NYS2d 217; Green vMann, 237 AD2d 566, 655 NYS2d 627; Strnad v Brudnicki, 200 AD2d 735, 736, 606 NYS2d 913 [2d Dept 1994]).
yrnes , 43 AD3d 421, 841 NYS2d 122 [2d Dept 2007] ; Pomygalski v. Eagle Lake Farms , 192 AD2d 810, 596 NYS2d 535 [3d Dept], lv denied 82 NY2d 656, 602 NYS2d 805 [1993] ), as well as to any unrecorded easements of which he or she has actual or constructive notice ( Stasack v. Dooley , 292 AD2d 698, 700, 739 NYS2d 478 [3d Dept 2002] ; Breakers Motel v. Sunbeach Montauk Two , 224 AD2d 473, 474, 638 NYS2d 135 [2d Dept], lv dismissed 88 NY2d 1016, 649 NYS2d 382 [1996], lv denied 90 NY2d 810, 665 NYS2d 401 [1997] ). A person who purchases a servient estate with actual or constructive notice of an easement is estopped from denying the existence of such easement ( Strnad v. Brudnicki , 200 AD2d 735, 737, 606 NYS2d 913 [2d Dept 1994] ; seeZunno v. Kiernan , 170 AD2d 795, 565 NYS2d 900 [3d Dept 1991] ), and may not unreasonably interfere with the rights of the owner of the dominant estate to use and enjoy the easement ( B.J. 96 Corp. v. Mester , 262 AD2d 732, 733, 692 NYS2d 185 [3d Dept 1999] ; Green v. Mann , 237 AD2d 566, 567-568, 655 NYS2d 627 [2d Dept 1997] ; Wilson v. Palmer , 229 AD2d 647, 647, 644 NYS2d 872 [3d Dept 1996] ; seeHerman v. Roberts , 119 NY 37, 23 NE 442 [1890] ; Scappa v. Herzig , 92 AD3d 751, 938 NYS2d 346 [2d Dept 2012] ; Rozek v. Kuplins , 266 AD2d 445, 698 NYS2d 866 [2d Dept 1999], lv denied 95 NY2d 754, 711 NYS2d 156 [2000] ).
tle (see Corrarino v Byrnes, 43 AD3d 421, 841 NYS2d 122 [2d Dept 2007]; Pomygalski v Eagle Lake Farms, 192 AD2d 810, 596 NYS2d 535 [3d Dept], lv denied 82 NY2d 656, 602 NYS2d 805 [1993]), as well as to any unrecorded easements of which he or she has actual or constructive notice (Stasack v Dooley, 292 AD2d 698, 700, 739 NYS2d 478 [3d Dept 2002]; Breakers Motel v Sunbeach Montauk Two, 224 AD2d 473, 474, 638 NYS2d 135 [2d Dept], lv dismissed 88 NY2d 1016, 649 NYS2d 382 [1996], lv denied 90 NY2d 810, 665 NYS2d 401 [1997]). A person who purchases a servient estate with actual or constructive notice of an easement is estopped from denying the existence of such easement (Strnad v Brudnicki, 200 AD2d 735, 737, 606 NYS2d 913 [2d Dept 1994]; see Zunno v Kiernan, 170 AD2d 795, 565 NYS2d 900 [3d Dept 1991]), and may not unreasonably interfere with the rights of the owner of the dominant estate to use and enjoy the easement (B.J. 96 Corp. v Mester, 262 AD2d 732, 733, 692 NYS2d 185 [3d Dept 1999]; Green v Mann, 237 AD2d 566, 567-568, 655 NYS2d 627 [2d Dept 1997]; Wilson v Palmer, 229 AD2d 647, 647, 644 NYS2d 872 [3d Dept 1996]; see Herman v Roberts, 119 NY 37, 23 NE 442 [1890]; Scappa v Herzig, 92 AD3d 751, 938 NYS2d 346 [2d Dept 2012]; Rozek v Kuplins, 266 AD2d 445, 698 NYS2d 866 [2d Dept 1999], lv denied 95 NY2d 754, 711 NYS2d 156 [2000]). Further, "long-time use, without objection of the servient tenement, establishes the location of the easement" (Green v Mann, 237 AD2d 566, 567, 655 NYS2d 627).
(see Corrarino v Byrnes, 43 AD3d 421, 841 NYS2d 122 [2d Dept 2007]; Pomygalski v Eagle Lake Farms, 192 AD2d 810, 596 NYS2d 535 [3d Dept], lv denied 82 NY2d 656, 602 NYS2d 805 [1993]), as well as to any unrecorded easements of which he or she has actual or constructive notice (Stasack v Dooley, 292 AD2d 698, 700, 739 NYS2d 478 [3d Dept 2002]; Breakers Motel v Sunbeach Montauk Two, 224 AD2d 473, 474, 638 NYS2d 135 [2d Dept], lv dismissed 88 NY2d 1016, 649 NYS2d 382 [1996], lv denied 90 NY2d 810, 665 NYS2d 401 [1997]). A person who purchases a servient estate with actual or constructive notice of an easement is estopped from denying the existence of such easement (Strnad v Brudnicki, 200 AD2d 735, 737, 606 NYS2d 913 [2d Dept 1994]; see Zunno v Kiernan, 170 AD2d 795, 565 NYS2d 900 [3d Dept 1991 ]), and may not unreasonably interfere with the rights of the owner of the dominant estate to use and enjoy the easement (B.J. 96 Corp. v Mester, 262 AD2d 732, 733, 692 NYS2d 185 [3d Dept 1999]; Green v Mann, 237 AD2d 566, 567-568, 655 NYS2d 627 [2d Dept 1997]; Wilson v Palmer, 229 AD2d 647, 647, 644 NYS2d 872 [3d Dept 1996]; see Herman v Roberts, 119 NY 37, 23 NE 442 [1890]; Scappa v Herzig, 92 AD3d 751, 938 NYS2d 346 [2d Dept 2012]; Rozek v Kuplins, 266 AD2d 445, 698 NYS2d 866 [2d Dept 1999], lv denied 95 NY2d 754, 711 NYS2d 156 [2000]). Further, "long-time use, without objection of the servient tenement, establishes the location of the easement" (Green v Mann, 237 AD2d 566, 567, 655 NYS2d 627).
It is inseparable from the land and a grant of the land carries with it the grant of the easement" (Will v Gates, 89 NY2d 778, 783, 658 NYS2d 900, 902 [1997]). An easement appurtenant occurs when the easement is conveyed in a writing, subscribed by the creator of the easement, which burdens the servient estate for the benefit of the dominant estate (Djoganopoulos v Polkes, 95 AD3d 933, 935, 944 NYS2d 217, 219 [2d Dept 2012]; Bogart v Roven, 8 AD3d 600, 601, 780 NYS2d 355, 356 [2d Dept 2004]; Green v Mann, 237 AD2d 566, 566-567, 655 NYS2d 627, 628 [2d Dept 1997]). When the dominant estate is transferred, the easement passes to the subsequent owner through appurtenance clauses, even if there is no specific mention of it in the deed (see Djoganopoulos v Polkes, 95 AD3d 933, 944 NYS2d 217; Green v Mann, 237 AD2d 566, 655 NYS2d 627; Strnad v Brudnicki, 200 AD2d 735, 606 NYS2d 915 [2d Dept 1994]).
“In the case of an affirmative easement, the owner of the dominant tenement-the easement holder-acquires or is granted a right to use another person's land in a particular, though limited, way” ( Sutera, 86 F.3d at 302). Therefore, the owner of the servient estate may not “unreasonably interfer[e]” with the rights of the dominant estate owner to use and enjoy the easement ( Green v. Mann, 237 A.D.2d 566, 567–568, 655 N.Y.S.2d 627;see Tagle v. Jakob, 97 N.Y.2d 165, 168, 737 N.Y.S.2d 331, 763 N.E.2d 107;Sutera, 86 F.3d at 302).
The easement will run with the land when it is conveyed in writing subscribed by the person creating the easement which burdens the servient estate. (see Green v. Mann, 237 A.D.2d 566 [2d 1997] ). “Easements by express grant are construed to give effect to the parties' intent, as manifested by the language of the grant.
Plaintiffs' attempt to distinguish Rose from Falter and Wilson based on Rose's alleged "property interest" must fail because it is undisputed that Rose is not a party to the grant of the easement from Vandewater to the Hogans. See Green v. Mann, 655 N.Y.S.2d 627, 629 (App. Div. 1997) (noting that only "[t]he servient tenement is prohibited from unreasonably interfering with the rights of the plaintiffs to use the easement") (listing cases) (emphasis added). Even if Rose had a property interest in the right of way—of which Plaintiffs have provided no proof—Plaintiffs have nonetheless provided no authority that someone other than the servient estate holder may be liable for damages in an interference with easement cause of action.
Plaintiff cites several cases to suggest that servient owners may have shared maintenance responsibilities with dominant owners (see, Raskin v. Crown-Kingston Realty Assocs., 254 A.D.2d 472, lv denied 94 N.Y.2d 751; Green v. Mann, 237 A.D.2d 566; Ceserio v. Chiapparine, 21 A.D.2d 272; Sutera v. Go Jokir, Inc., 86 F.3d 298 [2d Cir 1996]). Without approving or disapproving their holdings, we note that these cases involve ground-level passageways whose maintenance involves no unusual hazards or special expertise.
Removal of the obstruction and restoration of the land to its prior condition are well-recognized remedies for alleged ongoing interference with an easement holder's rights or to abate a public nuisance (see e.g. Zupa v Keitt, 84 A.D.3d 792, 794; City of New York v Gowanus Indus. Park, Inc., 65 A.D.3d 1071, 1074; Green v Mann, 237 A.D.2d 566, 568).