Glenn Acres Tree Farm, Inc. v. Town of Hartwick Historical Society, Inc.

84 A.D.3d 1529, 922 N.Y.S.2d 651
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMay 12, 2011
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 84 A.D.3d 1529 (Glenn Acres Tree Farm, Inc. v. Town of Hartwick Historical Society, Inc.) 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
Glenn Acres Tree Farm, Inc. v. Town of Hartwick Historical Society, Inc., 84 A.D.3d 1529, 922 N.Y.S.2d 651 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Opinion

Spain, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Dowd, J.), entered November 12, 2009 in Otsego County, upon a decision of the court in favor of defendant.

Plaintiff commenced this action to quiet title pursuant to RPAPL article 15 to a parcel of real property located in the Town of Hartwick, Otsego County, and to the historic schoolhouse which improves the property. In the complaint, plaintiff asserts that defendant “might unjustly claim” an interest in the schoolhouse structure and, accordingly, plaintiff seeks a declaration that it is the absolute owner of the parcel and its improvements. Plaintiff moved for summary judgment and defendant cross-moved for summary judgment seeking dismissal of the complaint based on plaintiffs failure to join a necessary party, namely plaintiffs grantor, Robert Myers. Supreme Court denied both motions and determined that Myers was not a necessary party.

Following a brief nonjury trial, Supreme Court found that plaintiff had failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that it had any right to the schoolhouse or the lot on which it sits (hereinafter the property), and dismissed the [1530]*1530complaint. Specifically, Supreme Court relied upon the following language in plaintiff’s deed: “All that certain plot, piece or parcel of land . . . situate ... at South Hartwick, County of Otsego and State of New York, and bounded as follows, to wit: . . . excepting and reserving therefrom three several dwelling houses and the lands belonging to them, also one store and lot and black-smith shop and lot, one school house and lot situated on said premises.” Given this clear language excepting the schoolhouse property from the land deeded to plaintiff, Supreme Court found that plaintiff had never taken title to the property and, thus, could not demonstrate ownership to the lot or schoolhouse either by title or reversion. Accordingly, Supreme Court dismissed the complaint. Plaintiff appeals, asserting that Supreme Court erred in simply dismissing plaintiff’s claim, rather than issuing a declaration concerning the validity of all parties’ claims to the property, and arguing, in any event, that plaintiff’s right to the property is superior to defendant’s. We now affirm the dismissal of the complaint, but on different grounds, as we hold that the complaint should have been dismissed for failure to join necessary parties other than Myers.

Initially, we note that had the action properly proceeded to the merits, plaintiff is correct in asserting that the dismissal of the complaint, without a declaration resolving each parties’ interest in the property, was error. “RPAPL article 15 requires that judgments made pursuant thereto shall declare the validity or invalidity of ‘any claim to any estate or interest established by any party to the action’ ... As such, Supreme Court’s order dismissing the complaint without making such a declaration was insufficient” (Keller v Village of Castleton-on-Hudson, 173 AD2d 979, 979 [1991], quoting RPAPL 1521 [1]; see Orrino v Norbon Homes, 35 AD2d 732, 732 [1970]). Here, however, because a review of the available proof leads us to the conclusion that title to the property cannot be ascertained on this record and that necessary parties to the action were omitted, we conclude that the complaint was properly dismissed, but should have been dismissed without prejudice.

A title search of the property conducted in 1985 by Lynn E. Green, Jr., the attorney for the Cooperstown Central School District, suggested to Green that the school was built over a century and a half ago on land then owned by John Webb and Elizabeth Webb, predecessors in interest to plaintiff. When the Webbs conveyed their land, Green found that they excepted the property in dispute here, creating the exception that now appears in plaintiff’s deed. No deed was found conveying the property to defendant’s alleged predecessors in interest, School [1531]*1531District No. 10

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

Related

Miller v. Carter
182 N.Y.S.3d 771 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2023)
The Meadow At Clarke Hollow Bay, LLC v. White
2017 NY Slip Op 8218 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Levenson v. Estate of Laviero
136 A.D.3d 1248 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
MohonkPreserve,Inc.vUllrich
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014
Mohonk Preserve, Inc. v. Ullrich
119 A.D.3d 1130 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
84 A.D.3d 1529, 922 N.Y.S.2d 651, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/glenn-acres-tree-farm-inc-v-town-of-hartwick-historical-society-inc-nyappdiv-2011.