Skip to main content



Burch v. Kyritsis

A-1816-04T5 (N.J. Super. App. Div. 2006) (Unpublished)

AGREEMENTS; SUBDIVISION—Where an agreement requires one party to perform work set forth on approved subdivision plans and the other party supported the subdivision application, it has no cause to complain that the scope of work is wrong.

A municipal planning board required a landowner to include his neighbor’s property in the landowner’s planned subdivision. The landowner and his neighbor negotiated an easement agreement. The landowner then prepared subdivision plans and his neighbor supported the subdivision application as a co-applicant. The planning board approved the proposed subdivision. The neighbor later sued the landowner, alleging breach of contract for failing to make specific landscaping improvements in accordance with the easement agreement and other oral agreements. The lower court found the written easement agreement contained the entire understanding between the parties, and that the landscaping improvements were performed exactly as indicated on the subdivision plans, which the neighbor approved and supported as co-applicant before the municipal planning board. It dismissed the neighbor’s allegations that the landowner did not perform the landscaping improvements in accordance with the oral and written agreements, but ordered the Landowner to complete the landscaping improvements in accordance with the approved subdivision plans. Finding that the lower court made appropriate determinations of fact, credibility determinations, and legal conclusions, the Appellate Division affirmed.


MEISLIK & MEISLIK
66 Park Street • Montclair, New Jersey 07042
tel: 973-783-3000 • fax: 973-744-5757 • info@meislik.com