Daby v. Frasca

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Daby v. Frasca

180 A.D.2d 840, 580 N.Y.S.2d 663, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1267

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

DecidedFebruary 6, 1992

StatusPublished

This text of 180 A.D.2d 840 (Daby v. Frasca) 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

Daby v. Frasca, 180 A.D.2d 840, 580 N.Y.S.2d 663, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1267 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Dier, J.), entered May 31, 1990 in Essex County, upon a decision of the court in favor of plaintiffs.

At trial, defendants argued that one of the piers of the dock at issue belonged to them because it was allegedly built on a portion of property over which they had a right-of-way and right to build a dock. Expert testimony at trial, however, indicated that no part of the dock was located on defendants’ right-of-way. Based on this testimony and the record before us, we are of the view that Supreme Court properly determined that defendants did not own or have a right to use the dock. The court therefore properly enjoined defendants from using or obstructing plaintiffs’ use of the dock (see, Town of Ithaca v Hull, 174 AD2d 911; Daetsch v Taber, 149 AD2d 864). Defendants’ remaining contentions have been reviewed and rejected as being without merit.

Mikoll, J. P., Yesawich Jr., Mercure, Crew III and Mahoney, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

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

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Dier, J.), entered May 31, 1990 in Essex County, upon a decision of the court in favor of plaintiffs.

At trial, defendants argued that one of the piers of the dock at issue belonged to them because it was allegedly built on a portion of property over which they had a right-of-way and right to build a dock. Expert testimony at trial, however, indicated that no part of the dock was located on defendants’ right-of-way. Based on this testimony and the record before us, we are of the view that Supreme Court properly determined that defendants did not own or have a right to use the dock. The court therefore properly enjoined defendants from using or obstructing plaintiffs’ use of the dock (see, Town of Ithaca v Hull, 174 AD2d 911; Daetsch v Taber, 149 AD2d 864). Defendants’ remaining contentions have been reviewed and rejected as being without merit.

Mikoll, J. P., Yesawich Jr., Mercure, Crew III and Mahoney, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

180 A.D.2d 840, 580 N.Y.S.2d 663, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1267, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/daby-v-frasca-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack