Lutz v. Van Valkenburgh

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lutz v. Van Valkenburgh

27 A.D.2d 735, 277 N.Y.S.2d 42, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4919

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

DecidedFebruary 6, 1967

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 27 A.D.2d 735 (Lutz v. Van Valkenburgh) 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

Lutz v. Van Valkenburgh, 27 A.D.2d 735, 277 N.Y.S.2d 42, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4919 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a consolidated action to declare plaintiff Charles Lutz (in Action No. 1) to be vested with unincumbered title in fee to certain real property in the City of Yonkers, for recovery by petitioner Yan Yalkenburgh (in Action No. 2) of possession of said property and to compel the removal of certain encroachments on the property (Action No. 3), said Yan Yalkenburgh appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered November 23, 1965, which inter alia awarded judgment to the plaintiff in Action No. 1 and dismissed the petition in Action No. 2 and the complaint in Action No. 3. Judgment reversed, except as to the fee awarded to the special guardian ad litem of Charles Lutz, on the law and the facts, with $50 costs; complaint in Action No. 1 dismissed; petition in Action No. 2 granted; and the relief demanded in the complaint in Action No. 3 granted. Findings of fact which are inconsistent herewith are reversed and new findings are made as indicated herein. On the trial it was stipulated that the sole remaining issue was one of adverse possession by the plaintiff in Action No. 1. In Van Valkenburgh v. Lutz (304 N. Y. 95), the issue of whether William Lutz, Charles Lutz’s predecessor in claim to the subject property, had acquired title to the property by adverse possession was before the court. The same period of time was involved in both cases. The witnesses in both cases were the same, except for Charles Lutz and the fact that the prior-ease testimony of three since-deceased witnesses was read into evidence in this case. The testimony offered in both trials was virtually identical. The Court of Appeals held that William Lutz did not establish his right to title by adverse possession. The same testimony fails to establish title by adverse possession in Charles Lutz. The applicable statute (former Civ. Prac. Act, §§ 37—40, now Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law, §§ 511, 512, 521, 522) provides that occupation must be under a claim of title. While the record is replete with instances where Charles Lutz has stated that the premises were owned by persons other than himself, there is no claim by him, even in his own testimony, that he owned the property or made claim thereto. This constitutes a fatal defect (Doherty v. Matsell, 119 N. Y. 646). Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Brennan, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

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

—In a consolidated action to declare plaintiff Charles Lutz (in Action No. 1) to be vested with unincumbered title in fee to certain real property in the City of Yonkers, for recovery by petitioner Yan Yalkenburgh (in Action No. 2) of possession of said property and to compel the removal of certain encroachments on the property (Action No. 3), said Yan Yalkenburgh appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered November 23, 1965, which inter alia awarded judgment to the plaintiff in Action No. 1 and dismissed the petition in Action No. 2 and the complaint in Action No. 3. Judgment reversed, except as to the fee awarded to the special guardian ad litem of Charles Lutz, on the law and the facts, with $50 costs; complaint in Action No. 1 dismissed; petition in Action No. 2 granted; and the relief demanded in the complaint in Action No. 3 granted. Findings of fact which are inconsistent herewith are reversed and new findings are made as indicated herein. On the trial it was stipulated that the sole remaining issue was one of adverse possession by the plaintiff in Action No. 1. In Van Valkenburgh v. Lutz (304 N. Y. 95), the issue of whether William Lutz, Charles Lutz’s predecessor in claim to the subject property, had acquired title to the property by adverse possession was before the court. The same period of time was involved in both cases. The witnesses in both cases were the same, except for Charles Lutz and the fact that the prior-ease testimony of three since-deceased witnesses was read into evidence in this case. The testimony offered in both trials was virtually identical. The Court of Appeals held that William Lutz did not establish his right to title by adverse possession. The same testimony fails to establish title by adverse possession in Charles Lutz. The applicable statute (former Civ. Prac. Act, §§ 37—40, now Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law, §§ 511, 512, 521, 522) provides that occupation must be under a claim of title. While the record is replete with instances where Charles Lutz has stated that the premises were owned by persons other than himself, there is no claim by him, even in his own testimony, that he owned the property or made claim thereto. This constitutes a fatal defect (Doherty v. Matsell, 119 N. Y. 646). Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Brennan, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 A.D.2d 735, 277 N.Y.S.2d 42, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4919, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lutz-v-van-valkenburgh-nyappdiv-1967.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack