A New York Supreme Court judge ruled in favor of the Board of Managers of the 190 Meserole Avenue Condominium in a dispute over an easement agreement with the Board of Managers of the 188 Meserole Avenue Condominium. The court found that the easement, allowing access to a driveway, had not been abandoned despite the construction of fences and landscaping by the property sponsor. This ruling affects the residents of both condominiums, particularly the Merriams, who sought to use the easement for access to their property.
The case, Board of Managers of the 190 Meserole Ave. Condominium v. Board of Managers of the 188 Meserole Ave. Condominium (Docket Number not specified), was decided on January 6, 2026, by Judge Katherine A. Levine. The court's decision highlights the complexities involved in property rights and easements, particularly in condominium developments.
Background
The dispute arose between the owners of the two condominiums, 190 Meserole Avenue and 188 Meserole Avenue, both located in Brooklyn, New York. The plaintiffs, Sean and Melissa Merriam, who own a unit in 188 Meserole Avenue, initiated the lawsuit against the Board of Managers of the 188 Meserole Avenue Condominium and other parties, including the owners of the adjacent 175 Diamond Street property.
The core of the dispute centers around an easement agreement that allowed for vehicular and pedestrian access between the properties. This easement was created by the sponsor of the properties before they were sold. However, the sponsor later attempted to rescind the easement, claiming it was no longer feasible. Despite this, the easement was still referenced in the offering plans for the condominiums, which were submitted to the New York State Attorney General's Office.
The Ruling
The court ruled that the easement had not been abandoned. Judge Levine stated, "the evidence is clear that both plaintiffs...purchased the property with full knowledge of the easement included in the offering plan." The court emphasized that the sponsor's failure to amend the offering plans or extinguish the easement was significant. The judge noted that the construction of fences and landscaping did not constitute a permanent abandonment of the easement, as these changes were not intended to permanently obstruct access.
Judge Levine further explained that nonuse of the easement does not equate to abandonment. She stated, "Simply put, the Paczeks had no right to transfigure their property and build an electronic fence to preclude plaintiffs from using their easement." The court found that the Merriams had the right to utilize the easement and could reconfigure their backyard to create a parking spot.
Impact
This ruling has significant implications for condominium owners and easement rights in New York. It reinforces the principle that easements cannot be easily abandoned without clear evidence of intent and action. The court's decision clarifies that the existence of an easement is determined by recorded documents rather than oral statements or intentions of the property sponsor.
The ruling also highlights the importance of clarity in property agreements and the necessity for property sponsors to adhere to recorded agreements when developing condominium properties. This case may set a precedent for future disputes regarding easements and property rights in similar situations.
What's Next
The defendants in this case may consider appealing the ruling, but details were not available in the court filing regarding any potential appeal. Additionally, there may be related cases pending that involve similar easement disputes in condominium developments.