Regan v. Lanze

354 N.E.2d 818, 40 N.Y.2d 475, 387 N.Y.S.2d 79, 1976 N.Y. LEXIS 2920
New York Court of Appeals·Decided July 8, 1976·Published·Cited by 53 cases

Opinion

Cooke, J.

This litigation arises out of a contract entered

into between plaintiffs and defendants on December 22, 1971 for the purchase and sale of a residential parcel in the City of Rochester designated as 29 Hoyt Place.

On June 3, 1909, a subdivision map of certain real property situate south of Hoyt Place and east of Winton Road was filed [478] in Liber 19 of Maps, at page 11, in the Monroe County Clerk’s Office. Interestingly, the tract was a bit southerly of the bed of the old Erie Canal. The map displayed 11 lots in all, those numbered 1, 2, 3 and 4 fronting on the southerly bounds of Hoyt Place, lot 4 being the most easterly of those shown, and lot 3 adjoining 4 and being immediately westerly of it. Lots 3 and 4 were sold at a mortgage foreclosure sale and a referee’s deed dated April 29,1955 conveyed them to defendants.*

Pursuant to a description and map for the appropriation of property of the New York State Department of Public Works filed in the Monroe County Clerk’s Office on September 25, 1959, the State appropriated a triangular-shaped piece of defendants’ land fronting on the south side of Hoyt Place. The triangle was described as beginning "in the existing southerly street line of Hoyt Place” at its intersection with the division line between property of Terrill on the west and property of defendants on the east, running thence southeasterly 90 feet "along said southerly street line of Hoyt Place” to its intersection with the division line between the property of Carleton and Seymour on the east and property of defendants on the west, thence southwesterly 98.36 feet through defendants’ lands to a point in the said division line between Terrill and defendants, thence northeásterly 32.74 feet along said last-mentioned division line to the point of beginning, containing 1,468 square feet of land. By a description and map filed by said Department of Public Works in the Monroe County Clerk’s Office on June 13, 1962, the State also appropriated a narrow strip, of which the Brighton Cemetery Association was the reputed owner, which strip adjoined the "southerly street line of Hoyt Place” and was located to the north of defendants’ premises.

Thereafter and on September 11, 1962, defendants gave a mortgage to the Columbia Banking Savings and Loan Association covering a parcel at the northeast corner of their premises. The description of the mortgaged tract included a frontage of 77.68 feet along the southerly bounds of Hoyt Place and indicated that its northwest corner was 20.68 feet along the south line of Hoyt Place from the west line of defendants’ premises. The total of these two distances along the southerly line of Hoyt Place equals the distance of one side of the [479] triangle as appropriated by the State in 1959, said side being also the relocated south line of Hoyt Place. The mortgage instrument stated that it was intended to mortgage a part of the premises conveyed to defendants in their 1955 deed and that there was excepted "therefrom the land appropriated by the State of New York for the Rochester City Eastern Expressway.” On June 12, 1963, defendants gave another mortgage to Columbia upon their remaining property, which included the 20.68 foot frontage on Hoyt Place, and which also excepted therefrom "the land appropriated by the State of New York for the Rochester City Eastern Expressway.” In January of 1964, a further mortgage was given by defendants to Columbia covering the said remainder and with the same exception.

In 1966 defendants conveyed to Tubiolo the parcel as first mortgaged to Columbia, same being carved out of the northeast portion of defendants’ premises. The deed description corresponded to that set forth in the mortgage and included the same exception as to the State appropriation. In 1969, Tubiolo deeded this parcel to Doland and at the time of transfer gave a mortgage to the Security Trust Company of Rochester.

Having read a newspaper ad, plaintiffs became interested in defendants’ house and lot. Plaintiffs visited the premises in early October of 1971 and spent about an hour there. According to testimony of plaintiff John Regan, he with defendant John Lanze, walked north out the driveway and easterly down Hoyt Place, the interstate highway was in plain sight, and Lanze pointed to a fence and said, "That’s the State’s fence and that fence runs all the way along the north side of Hoyt Place.” Lanze, on cross-examination, related that he also told Regan that he subdivided the lots after the street was moved so he could build a house.

Negotiations culminated in a contract of December 22, 1971 wherein defendants agreed to sell the property in the City of Rochester "known and described as No. 29 Hoyt Place. Lot size approximately 21’ x 109’ x 207’ x 264’ as per deed to you * * * together with a two story stone and frame dwelling now thereon.” The contract called for a closing of title on or before January 3, 1972 and, after questions were raised on behalf of plaintiffs regarding the effect of the appropriations and after divers mesne adjournments, a date was set for January 26, 1972. However, transfer of title did not then take place.

[480] The complaint of plaintiffs asserts four causes of action: first, for specific performance of the contract by defendants Lanze, for damages if said defendants cannot make good and marketable title to said premises, and for reformation of the descriptions in the mortgages to Columbia; second, for reformation of the deed to defendants Doland and of the mortgage given by said defendants to Security; third, for the recovery against defendant Charles Ambush Realty of the $1,000 deposit; and fourth, against the People of the State of New York for a declaratory judgment establishing rights of plaintiffs to easements over land appropriated by the State. The answer of defendants Lanze demanded judgment dismissing the complaint and asserted three counterclaims: one, for specific performance of the contract; a second, for damages for slander of title; and a third, for reimbursement of the broker’s commission.

Special Term denied plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and granted that of defendants Lanze for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and for judgment on their counterclaims. Applications of defendants Security and the State of New York to dismiss the complaint were granted. Upon appeal, the Appellate Division reversed the dismissal of the complaint as to Security (42 AD2d 830). Stating that a trial was required, the Appellate Division also reversed the grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants Lanze, which had resulted in dismissal of the complaint and the award of judgment to them on their counterclaims, and granted summary judgment to plaintiffs dismissing the Lanzes’ second and third counterclaims (42 AD2d 831). During the pendency of this appellate review, the appeal as to the State was discontinued upon delivery to plaintiffs of an instrument, executed by an assistant to the regional director of the Department of Transportation, declaring that the right of access of abutting owners, specifically 29 Hoyt Place, for ingress and egress and for maintenance of sewer connections in Hoyt Place as relocated was not taken by the appropriations of 1959 and 1962.

Shortly prior to trial a "correction deed”, quitclaim in form, signed by defendants Doland and Security, as well as by Peter and Ingrid Tub iolo, Dolands’ predecessors in title, was delivered to plaintiffs, whereupon the action was discontinued as to the Dolands and Security.

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

Regan v. Lanze, 354 N.E.2d 818, 40 N.Y.2d 475, 387 N.Y.S.2d 79, 1976 N.Y. LEXIS 2920 (N.Y. 1976).

354 N.E.2d 818 (Regan v. Lanze) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Lusk v. McNamee
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2026
Wilmington Sav. Fund Socy., FSB v. Genova
2025 NY Slip Op 01665 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2025)
Matter of Shapiro v. Torres
2017 NY Slip Op 6281 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
97th Street Holdings, LLC v. East Side Tenants Corp.
82 A.D.3d 473 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
111-38 Management Corp. v. Benitez
70 A.D.3d 911 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Bryer v. Terleph
69 A.D.3d 894 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Legacy Development v. Liberatore
66 A.D.3d 1406 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Gilbert v. State
25 Misc. 3d 552 (New York State Court of Claims, 2009)
Francesa v. Scibetta
50 A.D.3d 629 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Argent Mortgage Co. v. Leveau
46 A.D.3d 727 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
NYCTL 1998-1 v. Mayfield
17 Misc. 3d 268 (New York Supreme Court, 2007)
National Land & Building Corp. v. Kazim
25 A.D.3d 513 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
EMF General Contracting Corp. v. Bisbee
6 A.D.3d 45 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Gateway Development & Manufacturing, Inc. v. Commercial Carriers, Inc.
296 A.D.2d 821 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
McNair v. McNulty
295 A.D.2d 515 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
Kera v. DeFilippo
290 A.D.2d 287 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
Dominici v. Lentini
24 F. App'x 86 (Second Circuit, 2001)