Goff v. George

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Goff v. George

31 A.D.2d 579, 295 N.Y.S.2d 211, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2866

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

DecidedNovember 21, 1968

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 31 A.D.2d 579 (Goff v. George) 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

Goff v. George, 31 A.D.2d 579, 295 N.Y.S.2d 211, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2866 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Memorandum by the Court. Reargument of appeal from judgment of the Supreme Court, entered March 17,1967, in Ulster County. (See 29 A D 2d 574.) When this ease was before us previously (29 A D 2d 574) we held that “the tax deed is not sufficiently accurate to locate the property in question and therefore its purported conveyance of title is ineffective ” (p. 575) and, accordingly, reversed a judgment in favor of the defendant and granted judgment to the plaintiff. We find advanced upon reargument no reason to disturb this position. Nor do we find available to defendants the defenses of estoppel under the factual situation here involved (see, Trenton, Banking Co. v. Duncan, 86 N. Y. 221, 230) or of the Statute of Limitations since it was not pleaded as an affirmative defense (Lindlots Realty Co. v. County of Suffolk, 278 N. Y. 45, 54; CPLR 3018, subd. [b]). On reargument, the court adheres to the original determination. Herlihy, J. P., Reynolds, Aulisi, Staley, Jr., and Gabrielli, JJ., concur in memorandum by the court.

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

Memorandum by the Court. Reargument of appeal from judgment of the Supreme Court, entered March 17,1967, in Ulster County. (See 29 A D 2d 574.) When this ease was before us previously (29 A D 2d 574) we held that “the tax deed is not sufficiently accurate to locate the property in question and therefore its purported conveyance of title is ineffective ” (p. 575) and, accordingly, reversed a judgment in favor of the defendant and granted judgment to the plaintiff. We find advanced upon reargument no reason to disturb this position. Nor do we find available to defendants the defenses of estoppel under the factual situation here involved (see, Trenton, Banking Co. v. Duncan, 86 N. Y. 221, 230) or of the Statute of Limitations since it was not pleaded as an affirmative defense (Lindlots Realty Co. v. County of Suffolk, 278 N. Y. 45, 54; CPLR 3018, subd. [b]). On reargument, the court adheres to the original determination. Herlihy, J. P., Reynolds, Aulisi, Staley, Jr., and Gabrielli, JJ., concur in memorandum by the court.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

31 A.D.2d 579, 295 N.Y.S.2d 211, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2866, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goff-v-george-nyappdiv-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack