Michael E. Connole et al. v. Michele Babij aka Michele Babij Martin (2011)

SUPPLEMENTAL JUDGMENT

The Court hereby clarifies its original judgment entered after trial and dated December 29, 2010.   The plaintiffs in the above entitled action have moved for clarification of the Court's judgment concerning the use of a certain portion of the subject right of way which abuts the southerly terminus of Moreland Road, a private road running in a north-south direction within the property lines of the plaintiff Connole.   The portion of the said right of way at issue is approximately 50 feet in width (north-south) and 30 feet in length (east-west) and abuts the northerly property line of Maguire.

The intent of the judgment was never to landlock any of the parties in the above action.   The parcel in question would in effect be a southerly extension of Moreland Road as depicted on Plaintiffs' Exhibits 23 and 25.   The intent is to allow limited access by the plaintiffs Maguire and Connole over the subject parcel by vehicular traffic as well pedestrian passage.   The said vehicular passage to be allowed over that limited portion of the said right of way is to be done in such a way as not to damage, interfere with, or in any way limit the use and enjoyment of the said right of way or any portion thereof pursuant to the said judgment, which right of way is owned by the defendant Michele Babij.   This said vehicular passage is to be permanent in nature and independent of any other passage rights that Maguire may acquire over other portions of the said Highland Lake Road aka, which are part of this judgment.   All other residual rights pertaining to the subject right of away remain vested in and with the defendant Babij.

By way of further clarification, the southerly portion of the said right of way under its various names terminating in Wakefield Boulevard has been subjected to pre-existing vehicular usages by its various abutting owners, to include, but not limited to Maguire and Bazzano.   All other rights, duties and provisions found in this said judgment of the court relating to the respective parties in this action remain in full force and effect and are in no way modified or amended by this supplemental judgment.

BY THE COURT

Roche, J.

Roche, Vincent E., J.