Great River Realty Corp. v. Davis

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Great River Realty Corp. v. Davis

4 A.D.2d 949, 167 N.Y.S.2d 850, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4104

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

DecidedNovember 4, 1957

StatusPublished

This text of 4 A.D.2d 949 (Great River Realty Corp. v. Davis) 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

Great River Realty Corp. v. Davis, 4 A.D.2d 949, 167 N.Y.S.2d 850, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4104 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1957).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action pursuant to article 15 of the Real Property Law to determine a claim to real property, plaintiff appeals from a judgment dismissing the complaint after trial. Defendant Davis cross-appeals from said judgment insofar as it fails to award costs to him. Judgment modified on the law by providing that the dismissal of the complaint be with costs to defendant Davis. As so modified, judgment unanimously affirmed, with one bill of costs to respondent-appellant and one bill of costs to defendants-respondents, payable by appellant-respondent. The findings of fact are affirmed. As this action, while actually tried at Special Term without a jury, was triable before a jury, Davis, as a prevailing party, was entitled to costs of the action as a matter of course (Connolly v. Curry, 268 App. Div. 1067, 269 App. Div. 667; County of Nassau v. Hardie, 268 App. Div. 1068, 269 App. Div. 667). Present —Nolan, P. J., Wenzel, Murphy, Ughetta and Hallinan, JJ. [See 5 A D 2d 679.]

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

In an action pursuant to article 15 of the Real Property Law to determine a claim to real property, plaintiff appeals from a judgment dismissing the complaint after trial. Defendant Davis cross-appeals from said judgment insofar as it fails to award costs to him. Judgment modified on the law by providing that the dismissal of the complaint be with costs to defendant Davis. As so modified, judgment unanimously affirmed, with one bill of costs to respondent-appellant and one bill of costs to defendants-respondents, payable by appellant-respondent. The findings of fact are affirmed. As this action, while actually tried at Special Term without a jury, was triable before a jury, Davis, as a prevailing party, was entitled to costs of the action as a matter of course (Connolly v. Curry, 268 App. Div. 1067, 269 App. Div. 667; County of Nassau v. Hardie, 268 App. Div. 1068, 269 App. Div. 667). Present —Nolan, P. J., Wenzel, Murphy, Ughetta and Hallinan, JJ. [See 5 A D 2d 679.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

4 A.D.2d 949, 167 N.Y.S.2d 850, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4104, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/great-river-realty-corp-v-davis-nyappdiv-1957.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack