ORDERED that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs.
The extent of an easement claimed under a grant is generally limited by the language of the grant, as a grantor may create an extensive or a limited easement (see Papasmiris v. Katsos, 262 A.D.2d 619; Ledley v. D.J. N.A. Mgt., 228 A.D.2d 482; Mandia v. King Lbr. Plywood Co., 179 A.D.2d 150). The terms of the grant are to be construed most strongly against the grantor in ascertaining the extent of the easement (see Ledley v. D.J. N.A. Mgt., supra; Circuit City Stores v. Muss, 151 A.D.2d 714, 715). The facts of this case support the Supreme Court's determination that the grant limits the application of the easement to the most northerly three feet of the defendants' property. Since the defendants' plans do not include any construction in that three-foot area, there was no violation of the easement. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment.
FLORIO, J.P., SMITH, FRIEDMANN and TOWNES, JJ., concur.