MANUFACTURERS AND TRADERS TRUST COMPANY VS. URBAN EDGE PROPERTIES, LP (C-000023-16, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) ( 2018 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the
internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-5305-16T4
MANUFACTURERS AND TRADERS
TRUST COMPANY,
Plaintiff-Respondent/
Cross-Appellant,
v.
URBAN EDGE PROPERTIES, LP,
and LODI UE LLC,
Defendants-Appellants/
Cross-Respondents,
and
MUNICIPALITY OF LODI and
HUDSON PARK REALTY
ASSOCIATES, LP,
Defendants-Respondents.
______________________________
Submitted November 26, 2018 – Decided December 3, 2018
Before Judges Sabatino, Haas and Sumners.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,
Chancery Division, Bergen County, Docket No. C-
000023-16.
Jeffer, Hopkinson & Vogel, and Riker Danzig Scherer
Hyland & Perretti LLP, attorneys for appellants/cross-
respondents (David H. Altman, Bethany A. Abele,
Michael R. O'Donnell, and Jorge A. Sanchez, on the
briefs).
Frank T. Luciano, attorney for respondent/cross-
appellant Manufacturers and Traders Trust Company.
Alan P. Spiniello, attorney for respondent Borough of
Lodi, join in the brief of respondent Manufacturers and
Traders Trust Company.
Joseph J. Rotolo, attorney for respondent Hudson Park
Realty Associates, LP, join in the brief of respondent
Manufacturers and Traders Trust Company.
PER CURIAM
Defendants Urban Edge Properties LP and Lodi UE LLC appeal from the
Chancery Division's June 13, 2017 and July 7, 2017 orders, partially granting
plaintiff Manufacturers Traders and Trust Company's motion for summary
judgment in this dispute over plaintiff's right to use a roadway located on
defendants' property. 1 We affirm.
1
The trial court denied the portion of plaintiff's motion in which it sought a
declaration that it possessed an easement by prescription over the roadway, and
plaintiff has filed a cross-appeal challenging that determination. In a separate
June 13, 2017 order, the court denied defendants' motion for summary judgment.
A-5305-16T4
2
All of the relevant facts underlying this matter are set forth in
comprehensive detail in the seventy-two-page written decision rendered by
Judge Robert P. Contillo on June 13, 2017. The parties are fully familiar with
these facts and, therefore, they will not be repeated here.
Suffice it to say that a fifty-foot wide road, known as Bruan Place, lies at
the center of the controversy between the parties. Defendants own and operate
a shopping center on the property on which Bruan Place is also situated.
Plaintiff owns and operates a bank on an adjacent lot. The shopping center and
the bank are located on Essex Street in Lodi. Bruan Place intersects with Essex
Street and, for the past forty years, Bruan Place has provided the only means of
access from Essex Street to plaintiff's and defendants' properties.
The parties had previously entered into licensing and maintenance
agreements under which, among other things, defendants permitted plaintiff 's
customers to use parking spaces in its shopping center. In November 2015,
defendants sought to raise the annual fees it charged plaintiff under these
agreements, and plaintiff balked at paying the new assessments. As a result,
defendants threatened to prevent plaintiff's employees and customers from using
Bruan Place to access the bank.
A-5305-16T4
3
Plaintiff then filed a complaint against defendants, and sought a
declaration that it had the right to use Bruan Place because: (1) it held an implied
easement over the roadway because Bruan Place had been described in the deed
the original owner issued to plaintiff's predecessor in interest; (2) Bruan Place
was a dedicated street and, as such, was a recognized public thoroughfare
accessible to plaintiff and the public; and (3) it held an easement by prescription
over Bruan Place because it had used it for over three decades. Defendants
disagreed with plaintiff's contentions and, because the material facts were not in
dispute, the parties eventually filed cross-motions for summary judgment.
In his thorough and thoughtful written opinion, Judge Contillo
meticulously considered the parties' competing arguments, made detailed
findings of facts in which he examined the chain of title for the properties all
the way back to 1949, and rendered sound legal rulings that were fully supported
by the governing case law. The judge found that the deed instruments created
an implied easement in plaintiff's favor over Bruan Place, and also ruled that
this means of ingress and egress from Essex Street to the parties' properties was
a dedicated public thoroughfare. However, Judge Contillo rejected plaintiff's
claim that it had an exclusive easement by prescription permitting it to control
access to Bruan Place.
A-5305-16T4
4
Defendants have appealed the judge's determination that plaintiff was
vested with an implied easement over and through Bruan Place, and his finding
that this road was a dedicated thoroughfare. In its cross-appeal, plaintiff
challenges the judge's denial of its request for a declaration that it held an
easement by prescription over Bruan Place. In their respective appellate briefs,
the parties have raised the same arguments that Judge Contillo exhaustively
considered in his seventy-two page written decision.
Our review of a ruling on summary judgment is de novo, applying the
same legal standard as the trial court, namely, the standard set forth in Rule 4:46-
2(c). Conley v. Guerrero, 228 N.J. 339, 346 (2017). Thus, we consider, as Judge
Contillo did, whether "the competent evidential materials presented, when
viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, are sufficient to
permit a rational factfinder to resolve the alleged disputed issue in favor of the
non-moving party." Town of Kearny v. Brandt, 214 N.J. 76, 91 (2013) (quoting
Brill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 142 N.J. 520, 540 (1995)). If there is no
genuine issue of material fact, we must then decide whether the trial court
correctly interpreted the law. Prudential Prop. & Cas. Co. v. Boylan, 307 N.J.
Super. 162, 167 (App. Div. 1998). We accord no deference to the trial judge's
A-5305-16T4
5
conclusions on issues of law and review issues of law de novo. Nicholas v.
Mynster, 213 N.J. 463, 478 (2013).
We have considered the parties' contentions in light of the record and
applicable legal principles. We are satisfied that Judge Contillo properly fou nd
that plaintiff held an implied easement over Bruan Place, and that this road was
a dedicated public thoroughfare. The judge also correctly rejected plaintiff's
argument that it held an easement by prescription over the road. We therefore
affirm for the reasons expressed by Judge Contillo in his detailed written
opinion.
Affirmed.
A-5305-16T4
6