Miller v. Tallarino

30 A.D.2d 1034, 294 N.Y.S.2d 929, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3089
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedOctober 24, 1968
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 30 A.D.2d 1034 (Miller v. Tallarino) 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
Miller v. Tallarino, 30 A.D.2d 1034, 294 N.Y.S.2d 929, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3089 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1968).

Opinion

Judgment unanimously modified on the law and facts, without costs by adding to the last sentence of the first decretal paragraph thereof the words “upon which plaintiff’s premises abut to the center line thereof ”, by deleting from the fourth decretal paragraph thereof the words, “ by adverse possession” and by adding to the next to last decretal paragraph thereof the words “ except that Adeline Tallarino is declared to be the owner in fee of that portion of Ardmore Street which adjoins her lots 49 and 50, subject to such rights of easement as other lot owners may have.” Certain findings of fact disapproved and reversed and new findings made. Memorandum: In this action to determine title under article 15 of the Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law, the judgment correctly decrees that plaintiff’s title extends to the center of the streets on which his lots abut. It erroneously decrees, however, that plaintiff also owns portions of the streets which are not adjacent to his lots, but adjoin lands of other lot owners who are not parties to the action. While appellant, Adeline Tallarino, whose lots abut a city street, acquired no easement to use the undeveloped streets of the subdivision (Matter of City of New York [E. 117th St.] 239 N. Y. 119, 130, 131; Hecht v. Pawner, 30 Misc 2d 47, 53, 54, affd. on opinion below 14 A D 2d 964) she does own that part of Ardmore Street which lies between her lots number 49 and 50 subject to such rights of easement as other lots owners may possess. (Appeal from judgment of Oneida Trial Term in action to determine title to real property.) Present — Bastow, P. J., Williams, Goldman, Del Vecchio and Henry, JJ.

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

Related

De Ruscio v. Jackson
164 A.D.2d 684 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1991)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
30 A.D.2d 1034, 294 N.Y.S.2d 929, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3089, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miller-v-tallarino-nyappdiv-1968.