Padlon v. Hawxhurst

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Padlon v. Hawxhurst

42 A.D.2d 910, 347 N.Y.S.2d 944, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3543

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

DecidedSeptember 24, 1973

StatusPublished

This text of 42 A.D.2d 910 (Padlon v. Hawxhurst) 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

Padlon v. Hawxhurst, 42 A.D.2d 910, 347 N.Y.S.2d 944, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3543 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to determine claims to real property (Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law, art. 15), (1) plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated December 13,1972 and made after a nonjury trial, as is against her, including an adjudication that the nonmunieipal defendants have absolute title to certain property, and (2) the latter cross-appeal from the remainder of the judgment, i.e., so much thereof as dismissed their counterclaim for refund of taxes and purchase price. Judgment affirmed insofar as appealed from by plaintiff. Cross appeal dismissed as moot in the light of the determination herein on the appeal by plaintiff. A single bill of costs is awarded jointly to defendants appearing separately and filing separate briefs, against plaintiff. In view of our determination, we do not reach the question of the Statute of Limitations, which may well apply. Munder, Acting P. J., Martuscello, Latham, Gulotta and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to determine claims to real property (Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law, art. 15), (1) plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated December 13,1972 and made after a nonjury trial, as is against her, including an adjudication that the nonmunieipal defendants have absolute title to certain property, and (2) the latter cross-appeal from the remainder of the judgment, i.e., so much thereof as dismissed their counterclaim for refund of taxes and purchase price. Judgment affirmed insofar as appealed from by plaintiff. Cross appeal dismissed as moot in the light of the determination herein on the appeal by plaintiff. A single bill of costs is awarded jointly to defendants appearing separately and filing separate briefs, against plaintiff. In view of our determination, we do not reach the question of the Statute of Limitations, which may well apply. Munder, Acting P. J., Martuscello, Latham, Gulotta and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

42 A.D.2d 910, 347 N.Y.S.2d 944, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3543, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/padlon-v-hawxhurst-nyappdiv-1973.