Domin v. Walters

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Domin v. Walters

79 A.D.2d 1086, 435 N.Y.S.2d 823, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10022

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

DecidedJanuary 16, 1981

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 79 A.D.2d 1086 (Domin v. Walters) 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

Domin v. Walters, 79 A.D.2d 1086, 435 N.Y.S.2d 823, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10022 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. Memorandum: We find ample proof in the record to support the findings of the referee adopted by the court to settle a boundary line dispute to a strip of land between the respective farms of the parties. The record indicates that the parties and their predecessors treated the fence line and hedgerow as the east-west boundary between the lots until the present dispute. There is no evidence that the parties treated this as other than the boundary line until 1968 when this dispute arose. A practical location of a boundary line acquiesced in for a long series of years will not be disturbed (Baldwin v Brown, 16 NY 359,362; Reed v Farr, 35 NY 113,116-117; Sherman v Kane, 86 NY 57, 73-74; see, also, Allen Cross, 64 AD2d 288, 292). (Appeals from judgment of Erie Supreme Court — RPAPL, art 15.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Simons, Hancock, Jr., Callahan and Moule, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. Memorandum: We find ample proof in the record to support the findings of the referee adopted by the court to settle a boundary line dispute to a strip of land between the respective farms of the parties. The record indicates that the parties and their predecessors treated the fence line and hedgerow as the east-west boundary between the lots until the present dispute. There is no evidence that the parties treated this as other than the boundary line until 1968 when this dispute arose. A practical location of a boundary line acquiesced in for a long series of years will not be disturbed (Baldwin v Brown, 16 NY 359,362; Reed v Farr, 35 NY 113,116-117; Sherman v Kane, 86 NY 57, 73-74; see, also, Allen Cross, 64 AD2d 288, 292). (Appeals from judgment of Erie Supreme Court — RPAPL, art 15.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Simons, Hancock, Jr., Callahan and Moule, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

79 A.D.2d 1086, 435 N.Y.S.2d 823, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10022, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/domin-v-walters-nyappdiv-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack