BRYDEN, JAMES G. v. HANKINS, LEROY

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

BRYDEN, JAMES G. v. HANKINS, LEROY

124 A.D.3d 1263, 999 N.Y.S.2d 905

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided January 2, 2015·No. CA 14-00113·Published

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Cayuga County (Mark H. Fandrich, A.J.), entered April 8, 2013. The judgment, among other things, determined the boundary line between the parties’ properties located in the Town of Fleming.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: We affirm for reasons stated in the amended decision at Supreme Court. We write to note that, contrary to plaintiffs contention, the record fully supports the court’s determination to rely on the Gleason (1998) survey over the Watkins (2005) survey. We also note that, in the absence of a *1264 cross appeal by defendants, their contention that the court erred in “not granting all lands north of the intersection of [defendants’] fence and the Gleason line to [defendants]” is not properly before us (see Raab v Dumblewski, 226 AD2d 1021, 1022 [1996]).

Present — Smith, J.R, Peradotto, Valentino, Whalen and DeJoseph, JJ.

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

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Cayuga County (Mark H. Fandrich, A.J.), entered April 8, 2013. The judgment, among other things, determined the boundary line between the parties’ properties located in the Town of Fleming.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: We affirm for reasons stated in the amended decision at Supreme Court. We write to note that, contrary to plaintiffs contention, the record fully supports the court’s determination to rely on the Gleason (1998) survey over the Watkins (2005) survey. We also note that, in the absence of a *1264 cross appeal by defendants, their contention that the court erred in “not granting all lands north of the intersection of [defendants’] fence and the Gleason line to [defendants]” is not properly before us (see Raab v Dumblewski, 226 AD2d 1021, 1022 [1996]).

Present — Smith, J.R, Peradotto, Valentino, Whalen and DeJoseph, JJ.

BRYDEN, JAMES G. v. HANKINS, LEROY, 124 A.D.3d 1263, 999 N.Y.S.2d 905 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

124 A.D.3d 1263 (BRYDEN, JAMES G. v. HANKINS, LEROY) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related