- Court
- New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department
- Case
- Peconic Land Trust, Inc. v. 341 Town Lane, LLC
- Docket
- 2020-08755
- Filed
- May 27, 2026
- Slip Op
- 2026 NY Slip Op 03316
- Citation
- 2026 NY Slip Op 03316 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep’t 2026)
Background
Peconic Land Trust, Inc. commenced an action against 341 Town Lane, LLC and other defendants to enforce a conservation easement on approximately 5.9 acres of land classified as “agricultural reserved area” in Amagansett. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants, without notice to the land trust, had cut and were attempting to remove scores of mature trees from the property in violation of a conservation easement that had burdened the land since 1995.
The plaintiff sought injunctive relief restraining the defendants from further violations and directing the restoration of the property. The Supreme Court, Suffolk County issued a temporary restraining order and then, in an order dated October 22, 2020, granted a preliminary injunction that broadly enjoined the defendants from “cutting, removing, relocating, mowing, or doing any maintenance on any trees, bushes, shrubs, grasses or other fauna or vegetation of any kind or nature” on the property. The defendants appealed, arguing that the preliminary injunction was overbroad.
Holding
The Appellate Division, Second Department modified the preliminary injunction to narrow its scope. Rather than prohibiting all maintenance of any vegetation on the property, the court limited the injunction to restraining the defendants from “removing and/or relocating trees, shrubs, or other vegetation on the subject property which would be in violation of” the conservation easement. The court otherwise affirmed the grant of preliminary injunctive relief.
The court found that the plaintiff demonstrated the three prerequisites for a preliminary injunction: a probability of success on the merits, danger of irreparable injury in the absence of an injunction, and a balance of equities in its favor. The court applied the principle that a conservation easement “should be interpreted so as to give effect to the intent of the parties as expressed by the language employed,” and that a party seeking to enforce a land use restriction must prove its scope “by clear and convincing evidence.” The plaintiff’s submissions established that the property was conveyed subject to an easement that restricted the removal of vegetation, and the defendants’ tree-cutting activities likely violated those restrictions.
The irreparable injury element was satisfied because the destruction of mature trees on conservation land constitutes harm that cannot be adequately compensated by money damages — once a decades-old tree is removed, the injury cannot be undone by a monetary award.
Takeaways
This decision is significant for environmental and land conservation law in New York. The court recognized that the destruction of vegetation on land burdened by a conservation easement constitutes irreparable harm — a recognition that aligns with the purpose of conservation easements, which is to preserve the natural character of the land in perpetuity. This finding makes it easier for land trusts and other easement holders to obtain preliminary injunctive relief against landowners who violate conservation restrictions.
However, the court’s modification of the injunction is also instructive. A preliminary injunction must be no broader than necessary to protect the movant’s rights. The original injunction — which prohibited even routine maintenance like mowing grass — went beyond what was needed to prevent harm during the litigation. The modified injunction more precisely targets the conduct at issue: the removal of vegetation that would violate the easement.
Why It Matters
As conservation easements become an increasingly important tool for land preservation on the East End of Long Island and elsewhere in New York, disputes between landowners and easement holders will continue to arise. This decision confirms that land trusts have effective judicial remedies when landowners violate conservation restrictions, but it also cautions that injunctive relief must be tailored to the specific violations at issue. For landowners purchasing property subject to conservation easements, the case serves as a reminder that these restrictions are enforceable and that violations — particularly the removal of mature vegetation — may result in injunctions that significantly limit the owner’s use of the property during litigation.