ERNEST R. CUFF, JR. v. ARTHUR W.D. BOSS

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-4979-06T34979-06T3

ERNEST R. CUFF, JR., HOWARD and

ALBERTA LLOYD, h/w, and ERNEST R.

CUFF, SR., and CAROLINE CUFF, h/w,

Plaintiffs,

and

LEON H. CUFF,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

ARTHUR W.D. BOSS and ANNE R.

BOSS, h/w,

Defendants/Third-Party

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

ERNEST R. CUFF, JR., HOWARD and

ALBERTA LLOYD, h/w, AND ERNEST R.

CUFF, SR., and CAROLINE CUFF, h/w,

Third-Party Defendants,

and

LEON H. CUFF,

Third-Party Defendant-Respondent.

_______________________________________________

 

Argued March 5, 2008 - Decided

Before Judges Wefing and R. B. Coleman.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,

Chancery Division, Cumberland County, No. C-3499-87.

Kevin McCann argued the cause for Defendants/

Third-Party Plaintiffs-Appellants (Chance &

McCann, attorneys; Shirley Naylor, on the brief).

Richard P. Coe, Jr., argued the cause for

Plaintiff/Third-Party Defendant-Respondent

(Weir & Partners, attorneys; Mr. Coe, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Defendants appeal from a trial court judgment entered following a remand from this court. After reviewing the record in light of the contentions advanced on appeal, we affirm.

The parties have been involved in a dispute for some years involving a strip of land over which plaintiff Leon Cuff contends he holds an easement; defendants disputed his claim to such an easement. That dispute led to various court proceedings and, ultimately, to an appeal to this court. We concluded that Cuff held an express easement, and we affirmed in part and reversed in part certain provisions contained in orders the trial court had entered. We remanded the matter to the trial court for entry of a judgment in accordance with our decision. Cuff v. Boss, No. A-6883-03T1, A-0107-04T1 (App Div. Oct. 31, 2006).

The parties submitted forms of judgment, drafted in accordance with their respective views of our decision. The trial court entered the form of judgment submitted by plaintiff Cuff, and defendants have appealed.

Defendants make but one contention, that the form of judgment does not conform to our opinion. We disagree. The form of judgment adequately states what we set forth.

The judgment under review is affirmed.

 

(continued)

(continued)

3

A-4979-06T3

April 30, 2008