Pullo v. Artrip

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pullo v. Artrip

15 A.D.3d 559, 789 N.Y.S.2d 690, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1838

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

DecidedFebruary 22, 2005

StatusPublished

This text of 15 A.D.3d 559 (Pullo v. Artrip) 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

Pullo v. Artrip, 15 A.D.3d 559, 789 N.Y.S.2d 690, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1838 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to compel the determination of claims to real property pursuant to RPAPL article 15, the defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of [560]*560a judgment of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Carey, J.), dated March 3, 2003, as, after a nonjury trial, dismissed their counterclaim seeking title to certain real property by adverse possession.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The defendants’ evidence at trial failed to establish that they obtained title by adverse possession to any of the real property at issue (see RPAPL 522; Ray v Beacon Hudson Mtn. Corp., 88 NY2d 154 [1996]; Seisser v Eglin, 7 AD3d 505 [2004]; Rowland v Crystal Bay Constr., 301 AD2d 585 [2003]; Giannone v Trotwood Corp., 266 AD2d 430 [1999]). Thus, their counterclaim was properly dismissed. H. Miller, J.P., Cozier, Ritter and Spolzino, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to compel the determination of claims to real property pursuant to RPAPL article 15, the defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of [560]*560a judgment of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Carey, J.), dated March 3, 2003, as, after a nonjury trial, dismissed their counterclaim seeking title to certain real property by adverse possession.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The defendants’ evidence at trial failed to establish that they obtained title by adverse possession to any of the real property at issue (see RPAPL 522; Ray v Beacon Hudson Mtn. Corp., 88 NY2d 154 [1996]; Seisser v Eglin, 7 AD3d 505 [2004]; Rowland v Crystal Bay Constr., 301 AD2d 585 [2003]; Giannone v Trotwood Corp., 266 AD2d 430 [1999]). Thus, their counterclaim was properly dismissed. H. Miller, J.P., Cozier, Ritter and Spolzino, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

15 A.D.3d 559, 789 N.Y.S.2d 690, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1838, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pullo-v-artrip-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack