A conclusion for Cackletown Road

Posted 9/27/22

NARROWSBURG, NY — Four and a half years of contention led to a simple verdict in the afternoon of September 22.

Robert and Yunhui “Vicki” Olman had sued Nico Juarez for trespass …

This item is available in full to subscribers.

Please log in to continue

Log in

A conclusion for Cackletown Road


NARROWSBURG, NY — Four and a half years of contention led to a simple verdict in the afternoon of September 22.

Robert and Yunhui “Vicki” Olman had sued Nico Juarez for trespass in a civil case that began in August of 2020. The jury found on September 22 that Juarez had intentionally trespassed on the Olmans’ property, and set damages for that trespass at $1,000.


Parts of the trial focused on the details of an earlier trial, a violation case for trespass that resolved in Juarez’s favor in September of 2020. Where Cackletown Road in the Town of Tusten ends and the Olmans’ driveway begins is disputed, and that case involved Juarez standing on a portion of the property that was arguably the town’s road.

The defense referred to that earlier trial only to distract and confuse the jury, said Daniel Lecours, attorney for the Olmans.

Juarez had taken a number of pictures and videos on the Olmans’ property well past the disputed boundary line, according to Lecours, providing evidence that he had clearly trespassed on their property. “Mr. Juarez knew he wasn’t supposed to be there, and he didn’t care,” said Lecours.


Both parties in the suit claimed significant harassment from their counterparts.

Lecours claimed that Juarez’ actions—including trespass, filming of construction contractors and repeated requests for intercession from a number of authorities—had disturbed the Olmans’ desired peace and quiet, and they deserved damages for that disturbance.

Juarez’ lawyer, Peter Schuyler, claimed that the Olmans had harassed Juarez through their own appeals for intercession in retaliation for his advocacy on behalf of a beaver dam and wetlands partially on their property.

The dam had been at the center of contention from the beginning, with Juarez claiming that the Olmans improperly and unnecessarily threatened the beavers on their property. Robert Olman testified that the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) told him to remove the beavers on their property before doing work on the property’s driveway, and he followed the DEC’s guidance in the matter.

The Olmans needed that driveway so that emergency vehicles could access the property, testified Vicki Olman: “I think our road is more important than beavers if there is anyone in danger. And that is our property, and if the ambulance and fire truck is not able to go through the road… I don’t like to kill animals. But if they are [a] nuisance and if we have the permit and we follow DEC guidance, I [don’t] object to it.”

The DEC fined one of Olman’s contractors in 2018 for doing work on the driveway without a permit; that was the only instance mentioned in the trial of reproach from the DEC concerning the work on the driveway.

Damages and injunctions

Judge Stephen Schick in his instructions to the jury focused on the question of trespass: had it occurred? And what damages, if any, had the trespass incurred?

The jury found, in response to those questions, that Juarez had trespassed, and that his trespass had only done $1,000 worth of damages.

In a post-trial discussion, each party’s lawyers discussed with Schick the Olmans’ request for an injunction against Juarez, seeking to prevent him from trespassing in future.

Schick wasn’t inclined to grant the injunction at that time, he said. He’d return to the subject around Thanksgiving, he said, hoping that the case’s participants could build up a period of good behavior leading up to that date.

“Maybe everybody now is satisfied that this is the end,” Schick said.

Cackletown Road,


No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here