Weston Street Hartford, LLC v. Zebra Realty, LLC

Citations

• 193 Conn. App. 542

Syllabus

The plaintiff sought a temporary and permanent injunction prohibiting the defendant from, inter alia, maintaining a parking lot within an easement granting the plaintiff a right-of-way over certain property owned by the defendant. The defendant filed a counterclaim, seeking, inter alia, a judgment declaring that it had the right to relocate the right-of-way at its own expense provided that it would be similar in size to the existing right-of-way and that it would not impose any additional burden on the plaintiff, as well as a permanent injunction directing the plaintiff to release the right-of-way upon its relocation by the defendant. The trial court rendered judgment for the defendant on the plaintiff's complaint, concluding that the plaintiff was not entitled to injunctive relief because it had failed to establish that the defendant's actions were interfering with the plaintiff's use of the right-of-way. The court also rejected the defendant's counterclaim insofar as the defendant sought a right to relocate the existing right-of-way and an order directing the plaintiff to release the right-of-way upon its relocation. Thereafter, the defendant appealed, and the plaintiff filed a cross appeal with this court. Held: 1. The trial court properly rendered judgment for the plaintiff on the counts of the defendant's counterclaim relating to the defendant's request to relocate the right-of-way and for an order directing the plaintiff to release the right-of-way; notwithstanding the defendant's claim to the contrary, there was no meaningful difference between the unilateral modification of an easement that this court in Alligood v. LaSaracina (122 Conn. App. 473) found to be improper and the unilateral relocation of an easement that the defendant sought in the present case, as either change is improper without the mutual consent of the landowner and the ease- ment owner, and this court rejected the defendant's claim that Alligood was inconsistent with Supreme Court preceden