Riggs v. Kirschner

187 A.D.2d 759, 589 N.Y.S.2d 680, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12741
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedNovember 5, 1992
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 187 A.D.2d 759 (Riggs v. Kirschner) 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
Riggs v. Kirschner, 187 A.D.2d 759, 589 N.Y.S.2d 680, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12741 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Opinion

Mahoney, J.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Torraca, J.), entered April 5, 1991 in Ulster County, which, in an action pursuant to RPAPL article 15, determined, inter alia, that certain defendants are the owners in fee simple absolute of certain property located in the Town of Saugerties.

This is an action under RPAPL article 15 to compel a determination of claims to certain real property. The real property in dispute is located in West Camp in the Town of Saugerties, Ulster County, and is depicted as the "Remainder of John C. Sauer Farm” on a survey map. A narrow railroad right-of-way traverses the parcel in a north-south direction, effectively separating it into two pieces. The land west of the right-of-way measures approximately 0.244 acres and the property east thereof comprises approximately 32.016 acres. Defendants Joseph De Lucia, Jean De Lucia and Stephanie Denis (hereinafter collectively referred to as defendants) claim title to the subject realty by virtue of a January 1986 quitclaim deed from defendant County of Ulster which, in turn, [760]*760traces its title from a 1972 tax foreclosure sale. Plaintiff obtained his interest in the property via an October 1986 bargain and sale deed from the heirs of John C. Sauer. Concededly, the description of the property contained in defendants’ deed, which is the same as that originally set forth in the 1964 Town of Saugerties Tax Assessment Roll, incorrectly describes the property as containing only three acres of land and incorrectly identifies two of the four abutting landowners.

While plaintiff recorded his deed after defendants, he nonetheless claims paramount title, arguing that the inaccuracies contained in defendants’ deed description regarding the size of the parcel and the names of the adjoining owners preclude identification of the property with any reasonable certainty and thus render the deed void in its entirety.

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

Related

Wilcox v. McLean
90 A.D.3d 1363 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
McGuire v. Mazzella
63 A.D.3d 421 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Boons v. Martocci
268 A.D.2d 616 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
Wilshire Credit Corp. v. Y.R. Builders, Inc.
262 A.D.2d 404 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
Led Duke v. Sommer
205 A.D.2d 1009 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
187 A.D.2d 759, 589 N.Y.S.2d 680, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12741, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/riggs-v-kirschner-nyappdiv-1992.