Catterson v. Pell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Catterson v. Pell

249 A.D.2d 387, 670 N.Y.S.2d 794, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3944

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

DecidedApril 13, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 249 A.D.2d 387 (Catterson v. Pell) 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

Catterson v. Pell, 249 A.D.2d 387, 670 N.Y.S.2d 794, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3944 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a proceeding pursuant to Indian Law, article 2, § 8, William R. Pell, IV and Sarah Fitzsimons appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the County Court, Suffolk County (Jones, J.), dated January 30, 1997, as determined that they are intruders upon a certain portion of the lands of the Shinnecock Indian Tribe and directed that a warrant issue to the Sheriff of Suffolk County commanding him to remove those intruders from the lands.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

[388]*388The petitioner proved, by a preponderance of the evidence that the disputed property lay within the borders of the Shinnecock Indian Reservation. Accordingly, the appellants are intruders on Indian lands, and their removal is warranted (see, Indian Law § 8).

The appellants’ remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review, without merit, or do not require reversal. Mangano, P. J., Copertino, Thompson and McGinity, JJ., concur.

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

—In a proceeding pursuant to Indian Law, article 2, § 8, William R. Pell, IV and Sarah Fitzsimons appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the County Court, Suffolk County (Jones, J.), dated January 30, 1997, as determined that they are intruders upon a certain portion of the lands of the Shinnecock Indian Tribe and directed that a warrant issue to the Sheriff of Suffolk County commanding him to remove those intruders from the lands.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

[388]*388The petitioner proved, by a preponderance of the evidence that the disputed property lay within the borders of the Shinnecock Indian Reservation. Accordingly, the appellants are intruders on Indian lands, and their removal is warranted (see, Indian Law § 8).

The appellants’ remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review, without merit, or do not require reversal. Mangano, P. J., Copertino, Thompson and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

249 A.D.2d 387, 670 N.Y.S.2d 794, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3944, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/catterson-v-pell-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack