Poulos v. Ferraiolo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Poulos v. Ferraiolo

17 A.D.2d 1006, 233 N.Y.S.2d 800, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6987

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

DecidedNovember 21, 1962

StatusPublished

This text of 17 A.D.2d 1006 (Poulos v. Ferraiolo) 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

Poulos v. Ferraiolo, 17 A.D.2d 1006, 233 N.Y.S.2d 800, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6987 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

This is an appeal by defendants from a judgment of Supreme Court, Greene County, in favor of plaintiff. Plaintiff sued for ejectment of defendants from a parcel of land allegedly owned by her and hereinafter referred to as parcel two. The plaintiff eoneededly owned another parcel north of this, hereinafter referred to as parcel one. The plaintiff has shown a paper chain of title back to 1830. The surveyors testified that plaintiff’s parcel two came out of a larger parcel described in a deed of 1830. The only question left was one of fact and concerned the boundaries of parcel two. Parcel one was conceded to be as described [1007]*1007in a map offered by plaintiff and prepared by plaintiff’s surveyor. The proof is to the effect that parcel one and parcel two have a common boundary, that is, the northern boundary line of parcel two. Furthermore, both parcels have Route OW as their western boundary line. The chain of title shows that parcel two is so much of a larger parcel, which had been conveyed to plaintiff’s predecessors, as laid east of Route 9W. This larger parcel had an eastern boundary line of 345 feet cast of Route 9W. The plaintiff introduced a highway map of 1910 which indicated that plaintiff’s predecessor in title had a frontage of 363 feet, more or less. Such a map being made for public purposes and filed in a County Clerk’s office is admissible. (Cf. Donohue v. Whitney, 133 N. Y. 178, 183; Horton v. Niagara, Lockport & Ontario Power Co., 231 App. Div. 398, 400; Cravath v. Baylis, 113 App. Div. 666, 669.) According to the plaintiff’s surveyor there were old fences that verified his marking of the boundary lines and placing of the description on the earth. The weight of the evidence indicates that plaintiff’s parcel two was properly located by her surveyor and the defendants offered no evidence of boundary lines or chain of title in themselves or anyone else. The defendants also tried to establish adverse possession, hut the record does not show an actual occupation of the premises by defendants or defendants’ predecessor in title. (Cf. Van Valkenburgh v. Lutz, 304 N. Y. 95.) Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. Present — Bergan, P. J., Gibson, ITerlihy, Reynolds and Taylor, JJ.

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

This is an appeal by defendants from a judgment of Supreme Court, Greene County, in favor of plaintiff. Plaintiff sued for ejectment of defendants from a parcel of land allegedly owned by her and hereinafter referred to as parcel two. The plaintiff eoneededly owned another parcel north of this, hereinafter referred to as parcel one. The plaintiff has shown a paper chain of title back to 1830. The surveyors testified that plaintiff’s parcel two came out of a larger parcel described in a deed of 1830. The only question left was one of fact and concerned the boundaries of parcel two. Parcel one was conceded to be as described [1007]*1007in a map offered by plaintiff and prepared by plaintiff’s surveyor. The proof is to the effect that parcel one and parcel two have a common boundary, that is, the northern boundary line of parcel two. Furthermore, both parcels have Route OW as their western boundary line. The chain of title shows that parcel two is so much of a larger parcel, which had been conveyed to plaintiff’s predecessors, as laid east of Route 9W. This larger parcel had an eastern boundary line of 345 feet cast of Route 9W. The plaintiff introduced a highway map of 1910 which indicated that plaintiff’s predecessor in title had a frontage of 363 feet, more or less. Such a map being made for public purposes and filed in a County Clerk’s office is admissible. (Cf. Donohue v. Whitney, 133 N. Y. 178, 183; Horton v. Niagara, Lockport & Ontario Power Co., 231 App. Div. 398, 400; Cravath v. Baylis, 113 App. Div. 666, 669.) According to the plaintiff’s surveyor there were old fences that verified his marking of the boundary lines and placing of the description on the earth. The weight of the evidence indicates that plaintiff’s parcel two was properly located by her surveyor and the defendants offered no evidence of boundary lines or chain of title in themselves or anyone else. The defendants also tried to establish adverse possession, hut the record does not show an actual occupation of the premises by defendants or defendants’ predecessor in title. (Cf. Van Valkenburgh v. Lutz, 304 N. Y. 95.) Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. Present — Bergan, P. J., Gibson, ITerlihy, Reynolds and Taylor, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

17 A.D.2d 1006, 233 N.Y.S.2d 800, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6987, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/poulos-v-ferraiolo-nyappdiv-1962.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack