Jones v. Breheny

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Jones v. Breheny

280 A.D.2d 973, 720 N.Y.S.2d 881, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3458

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

DecidedFebruary 7, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 280 A.D.2d 973 (Jones v. Breheny) 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

Jones v. Breheny, 280 A.D.2d 973, 720 N.Y.S.2d 881, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3458 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs and judgment granted in accordance with the following Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in concluding that the parties agreed that defendants’ 1995 survey accurately depicts the boundary between the parties’ adjoining lots. Upon our review of the record, however, we conclude that the uncontroverted expert testimony establishes that the boundary is correctly depicted in that survey. Contrary to the contention of plaintiffs, they failed to prove the elements necessary to establish that they acquired title to the disputed property by adverse possession (see, RPAPL 522; Modrzynski v Wolfer, 234 AD2d 901, 903; see generally, Ray v Beacon Hudson Mtn. Corp., 88 NY2d 154, 159). Thus, we modify the judgment by vacating the first ordering paragraph. Because the court failed to declare the rights of the parties, we further modify the judgment by granting judgment in favor of defendants declaring that defendants are the fee title owners of the entirety of lot 2 as depicted in defendants’ 1995 survey of the parties’ properties. (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Oneida County, Tenney, J. — Declaratory Judgment.) Present — Pigott, Jr., P. J., Pine, Hurlbutt, Kehoe and Lawton, JJ.

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

—Judgment unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs and judgment granted in accordance with the following Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in concluding that the parties agreed that defendants’ 1995 survey accurately depicts the boundary between the parties’ adjoining lots. Upon our review of the record, however, we conclude that the uncontroverted expert testimony establishes that the boundary is correctly depicted in that survey. Contrary to the contention of plaintiffs, they failed to prove the elements necessary to establish that they acquired title to the disputed property by adverse possession (see, RPAPL 522; Modrzynski v Wolfer, 234 AD2d 901, 903; see generally, Ray v Beacon Hudson Mtn. Corp., 88 NY2d 154, 159). Thus, we modify the judgment by vacating the first ordering paragraph. Because the court failed to declare the rights of the parties, we further modify the judgment by granting judgment in favor of defendants declaring that defendants are the fee title owners of the entirety of lot 2 as depicted in defendants’ 1995 survey of the parties’ properties. (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Oneida County, Tenney, J. — Declaratory Judgment.) Present — Pigott, Jr., P. J., Pine, Hurlbutt, Kehoe and Lawton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

280 A.D.2d 973, 720 N.Y.S.2d 881, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3458, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jones-v-breheny-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack