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

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided April 13, 1998·Published·Cited by 1 cases

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] The 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] The 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.

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

249 A.D.2d 387 (Catterson v. Pell) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related