This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Lewis (P) and Young (D) owned adjoining parcels of land. When D purchased the land, they intended to substantially upgrade the buildings by adding a new larger residence, an in-ground pool, and a tennis court. D claims that prior to the construction they met with the neighbors to discuss the plans. D had to relocate the easement driveway placing it close to the boundary line separating the three parcels. This resulted in the new driveway overlapping the old in some points and being 50 feet from the original in some other points. P then got the deed to one of the properties and wrote to D that if they made certain improvements, that P would approve the work being done. That letter was agreed to but according to D only after everything else was completed. Another demand was sent that all improvements be made to the relocated driveway. That was not done and P sued D. P got a partial summary judgment; D had no right to move the easement. This was affirmed by the Appellate Division.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.