Opinion ID: 1952455
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Protection of Private Property

Text: The Center asserts that defendants effectively blocked access to the clinic and trespassed on Center property, thereby interfering with the Center's property rights. New Jersey has long recognized that interference with property rights constitutes a basis for equitable relief. See, e.g., Westinghouse Elec. Corp. v. United Elec., Radio & Machine Workers of Am., 139 N.J. Eq. 97, 113, 49 A. 2d 896 (E. & A. 1946) (finding that labor picket blocking access to employer's plant was tantamount to a seizure of [employer]'s property.   . Equity alone can provide the adequate remedy.). We agree with the Appellate Division, 263 N.J. Super. at 216, 622 A. 2d 891, that the trespass by an unidentified demonstrator into the waiting room of the Center was not, standing alone, enough to justify injunctive relief: no evidence connected that trespasser directly to defendants. The Appellate Division determined correctly, however, that defendants did interfere with the Center's property rights by blocking the only entrance to the clinic. Ibid. That interference warrants a grant of injunctive relief. Moreover, although the trespass alone does not constitute a basis for relief, we conclude, as did the Appellate Division, that the trial court could reasonably consider the trespass in crafting the injunction because defendants had interfered with the Center's property rights in other ways.