Redfield v. Helin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Redfield v. Helin

11 A.D.2d 816, 205 N.Y.S.2d 989, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8459

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

DecidedJuly 20, 1960

StatusPublished

This text of 11 A.D.2d 816 (Redfield v. Helin) 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

Redfield v. Helin, 11 A.D.2d 816, 205 N.Y.S.2d 989, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8459 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, arising out of a boundary line dispute, to recover damages from defendants Helin, Alexander and Buko, for their trespass upon plaintiffs’ land and to restrain them from further trespassing upon plaintiffs’ land, in which defendant Helin asserted a counterclaim and cross complaint against plaintiffs and others to compel the determination of their claims to his (Helin’s) land, the said defendant Helin appeals from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, rendered May 11, 1959, after a nonjury trial, as, inter alia: (1) directs that plaintiffs recover $1,099.79 from defendants Helin, Alexander [817]*817and Buko and permanently enjoins them from trespassing upon plaintiffs’ premises; (2) declares that plaintiffs and Walsh defendants are the owners of their respective premises north of Cedar Hill Road; (3) declares that the Johnston and Dreyer defendants are the owners of their respective premises south of Cedar Hill Road; and (4) dismisses upon the merits the counterclaim and cross complaint. Judgment insofar as appealed from affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Nolan, P. J., Ughetta, Pette and Brennan, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, arising out of a boundary line dispute, to recover damages from defendants Helin, Alexander and Buko, for their trespass upon plaintiffs’ land and to restrain them from further trespassing upon plaintiffs’ land, in which defendant Helin asserted a counterclaim and cross complaint against plaintiffs and others to compel the determination of their claims to his (Helin’s) land, the said defendant Helin appeals from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, rendered May 11, 1959, after a nonjury trial, as, inter alia: (1) directs that plaintiffs recover $1,099.79 from defendants Helin, Alexander [817]*817and Buko and permanently enjoins them from trespassing upon plaintiffs’ premises; (2) declares that plaintiffs and Walsh defendants are the owners of their respective premises north of Cedar Hill Road; (3) declares that the Johnston and Dreyer defendants are the owners of their respective premises south of Cedar Hill Road; and (4) dismisses upon the merits the counterclaim and cross complaint. Judgment insofar as appealed from affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Nolan, P. J., Ughetta, Pette and Brennan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

11 A.D.2d 816, 205 N.Y.S.2d 989, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8459, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/redfield-v-helin-nyappdiv-1960.