the instant matter, a property owner’s right to access the State highway system is clearly defined by State law. While a property owner has a right of reasonable access to the State’s highway system, he or she does not have an absolute right to access the highway from any particular point on his or her property. N.J.S.A. 27:7-90; State, by Comm’r of Transp. v. Weiswasser, 149 N.J. 320, 339-40, 693 A.2d 864 (1997); High Horizons Dev. Co. v. Dep’t of Transp., 120 N.J. 40, 48-49, 575 A.2d 1360 (1990); State, by Comm’r of Transp. v. Dikert, 319 N.J.Super. 310, 318, 725 A.2d 119 (App.Div.), certif. denied, 161 N.J. 150, 735 A.2d 575 (1999); Mueller v. N.J. Highway Auth., 59 N.J.Super. 583, 595, 158 A.2d 343 (App.Div.1960). It follows then unde .Super. 469, 476, 635 A.2d 1007 (App.Div.1994) (<HOLDING>); State Highway Comm’r v. Kendall, 107
holding that landowner was entitled to compensation because the condemnation destroyed all reasonable access to remainder property recognizing no right to damages if landowner retains reasonable access to property after a condemnation holding that where by virtue of state action access is limited but remains reasonable there is no such denial of access as entitles the landowner to compensation holding that denial of access to carbon paper and reproduction equipment and denial of facetoface access to other inmates did not deprive an inmate of his right of access to the courts holding that damages for diminished access are not compensable as long as suitable access remains