Marsh v. Hogan

Summary

The court affirmed a judgment denying a landowner’s request for a mandatory injunction requiring removal of a house encroaching approximately 10 feet onto an express easement. Applying RPAPL 871 and equitable considerations, the court concluded that the remaining access, the hardship of moving the residence, the defendants’ lack of willfulness, and the plaintiff’s delay weighed against injunctive relief. The court also declined to remit the case for damages because the plaintiff presented no evidence of damages at trial.

Holdings

1. Plaintiff was not entitled to a mandatory injunction because, after weighing the equities, the benefit of removing the approximately 10-foot encroachment did not outweigh the hardship to defendants, particularly where plaintiff retained a nearly 40-foot-wide access strip.
2. Plaintiff could not unilaterally move the easement to an alternate location because the easement was established at a definite location and relocation required an agreement.
3. Remittal for a trial on damages was unwarranted because plaintiff failed to introduce evidence of damages at trial and thereby abandoned those claims.

Questions Presented

1. Whether plaintiff was entitled under RPAPL 871 to a mandatory injunction requiring defendants to remove the portion of their house encroaching on plaintiff's easement.
2. Whether the easement could be relocated to an alternate location requiring removal of defendants' barn without an agreement of the parties.
3. Whether the action should be remitted for a trial on damages allegedly caused by the encroachment and interference with access.

Disposition

affirmed