Melnyk v. Tutko

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Melnyk v. Tutko

260 A.D. 985, 23 N.Y.S.2d 230, 1940 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5693

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

DecidedNovember 8, 1940

StatusPublished

This text of 260 A.D. 985 (Melnyk v. Tutko) 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

Melnyk v. Tutko, 260 A.D. 985, 23 N.Y.S.2d 230, 1940 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5693 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1940).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment and order reversed on the facts and a new trial granted, with costs to the appellant to abide the event. Memorandum: We believe that the finding of title by adverse possession as to the land used as a sidewalk along the easterly side of defendants’ house and as to an easement to the land occupied for gas, water and sewer pipe is against the weight of evidence. The record does not disclose clearly the length of time, and the circumstances of the claimed adverse use. On a new trial all issues as to the entire 8.4 feet of land claimed by defendants will be open for examination. All concur. (The [986]*986judgment is for defendants in an action in ejectment, and vacates a previous judgment in favor of plaintiff. The order grants defendants’ motion to reopen the previous judgment in favor of plaintiff.) Present — Crosby, P. J., Cunningham, Taylor, Harris and McCurn, JJ.

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

Judgment and order reversed on the facts and a new trial granted, with costs to the appellant to abide the event. Memorandum: We believe that the finding of title by adverse possession as to the land used as a sidewalk along the easterly side of defendants’ house and as to an easement to the land occupied for gas, water and sewer pipe is against the weight of evidence. The record does not disclose clearly the length of time, and the circumstances of the claimed adverse use. On a new trial all issues as to the entire 8.4 feet of land claimed by defendants will be open for examination. All concur. (The [986]*986judgment is for defendants in an action in ejectment, and vacates a previous judgment in favor of plaintiff. The order grants defendants’ motion to reopen the previous judgment in favor of plaintiff.) Present — Crosby, P. J., Cunningham, Taylor, Harris and McCurn, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

260 A.D. 985, 23 N.Y.S.2d 230, 1940 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5693, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/melnyk-v-tutko-nyappdiv-1940.