DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the appeal from the order is dismissed; and it is further,
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed; and it is further,
ORDERED that the respondent is awarded one bill of costs.
The appeal from the intermediate order must be dismissed because the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of judgment in the action ( see, Matter of Aho, 39 N.Y.2d 241, 248). The issues raised on appeal from the order are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal of the judgment ( see, CPLR 5501[a][1]).
"[T]he extent of an easement claimed is to be determined by the language of the grant" ( Ledley v. D.J. N.A. Mgt., 228 A.D.2d 482; see, Phillips v. Jacobsen, 117 A.D.2d 785, 786). "[T]he terms of the grant are to be construed most strongly against the grantor in ascertaining the extent of the easement" ( Ledley v. D.J. N.A. Mgt., supra, at 482; see, Phillips v. Jacobsen, supra, at 786).
The plaintiffs were granted an easement in general terms, with no limitations, which described the right-of-way over a private road by its metes and bounds. We agree with the trial court's determination that the plaintiffs were granted a right-of-way over the entire 66-foot width of the private road ( cf., Fairfield Props. v. Pepe, 56 A.D.2d 883). The Supreme Court also properly directed the defendants to remove a fence from the strip contiguous to the plaintiffs' front yard ( see, Minogue v. Kaufman, 124 A.D.2d 791), a gate placed across the private road ( see, B.J. 96 Corp. v. Mester, 262 A.D.2d 732 [3d Dept., June 10, 1999]), as well as other debris which impeded the plaintiffs' access to the right-of-way.
RITTER, J.P., JOY, GOLDSTEIN, and McGINITY, JJ., concur.