A. D. Realty Corp. v. Doell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

A. D. Realty Corp. v. Doell

249 A.D. 854, 292 N.Y.S. 775, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10004

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJanuary 29, 1937

StatusPublished

This text of 249 A.D. 854 (A. D. Realty Corp. v. Doell) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

A. D. Realty Corp. v. Doell, 249 A.D. 854, 292 N.Y.S. 775, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10004 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1937).

Pincite

Opinion

Action in ejectment. Judgment awarding possession of a parcel of real property to the plaintiff unanimously affirmed, with costs. The claim that plaintiff did 'not establish title in the grantors named in the deeds upon which plaintiff relied was not raised at the trial. It may not be raised for the first time on appeal. This omission could readily have been supplied if the question had been raised. Assuming, without deciding, that defendant should have been accorded a jury trial and did not waive her right thereto, no prejudice or harm resulted from the denial. The proof adduced on behalf of the defendant by way of establishing adverse possession was insufficient and did not present any issue of fact that would require submission to a jury. The defense was insufficient as a matter of law, and the plaintiff’s prima facie case so far as right to possession was concerned, being unrebutted, plaintiff would have been entitled to the direction of a verdict. Present — Lazansky, P. J., Carswell, Davis, Adel and Taylor, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Action in ejectment. Judgment awarding possession of a parcel of real property to the plaintiff unanimously affirmed, with costs. The claim that plaintiff did 'not establish title in the grantors named in the deeds upon which plaintiff relied was not raised at the trial. It may not be raised for the first time on appeal. This omission could readily have been supplied if the question had been raised. Assuming, without deciding, that defendant should have been accorded a jury trial and did not waive her right thereto, no prejudice or harm resulted from the denial. The proof adduced on behalf of the defendant by way of establishing adverse possession was insufficient and did not present any issue of fact that would require submission to a jury. The defense was insufficient as a matter of law, and the plaintiff’s prima facie case so far as right to possession was concerned, being unrebutted, plaintiff would have been entitled to the direction of a verdict. Present — Lazansky, P. J., Carswell, Davis, Adel and Taylor, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

249 A.D. 854, 292 N.Y.S. 775, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10004, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/a-d-realty-corp-v-doell-nyappdiv-1937.