Rogoff v. Neal Vanderbilt Sons Corp.

263 A.D. 841, 31 N.Y.S.2d 570, 1941 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5213
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 15, 1941
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 263 A.D. 841 (Rogoff v. Neal Vanderbilt Sons Corp.) 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
Rogoff v. Neal Vanderbilt Sons Corp., 263 A.D. 841, 31 N.Y.S.2d 570, 1941 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5213 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1941).

Opinion

In an action in ejectment judgment was awarded to plaintiff. Judgment reversed on the law and the facts, with costs, and complaint dismissed on the law, with costs. Findings of fact and conclusions of law inconsistent herewith are reversed and new findings and conclusions will be made. Defendant Neal Vanderbilt Sons Corporation is the record owner and defendant Vanbro Construction Corporation was the lessee in possession of the disputed parcel at the time of the commencement of the action. Plaintiff is, and for ten years has been, the owner of the adjoining premises and claims title to the disputed parcel by virtue of a claimed uninterrupted adverse possession for more than fifteen years by himself and his predecessors in title. It is conceded that plaintiff’s deed and the deed of his predecessors do not cover the area in question and he does not assert adverse possession under a claim founded upon a written instrument. There is no evidence of an intent on the part of the plaintiff’s predecessors in title to transfer possession to plaintiff of the disputed area and, therefore, there is no privity in contract between plaintiff and his predecessors in title and their possession cannot be tacked on to his to make up the necessary fifteen years. Belotti v. Bickhardt (228 N. Y. 296), relied upon by plaintiff, is readily distinguished. In that case there was evidence of an intent to convey more than the land which the deed specifically described. Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Johnston, Taylor and Close, JJ., concur. Settle order on notice.

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

Related

Brant Lake Shores, Inc. v. Barton
61 Misc. 2d 902 (New York Supreme Court, 1970)
Pine Hill Concrete Mix Corp. v. Alto Corp.
25 A.D.2d 608 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1966)
Jacobs v. Lewicki
12 A.D.2d 625 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1960)
Moran v. Maguire
22 Misc. 2d 283 (New York Supreme Court, 1960)
Firsty v. Swan
17 Misc. 2d 57 (New York Supreme Court, 1959)
Meerhoff v. Rouse
4 A.D.2d 740 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1957)
Iscovitz v. Fisher
11 Misc. 2d 658 (New York Supreme Court, 1957)
Erie Railroad v. Kaplowitz
23 Misc. 2d 807 (New York Supreme Court, 1954)
Van Roo v. Van Roo
268 A.D. 170 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1944)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
263 A.D. 841, 31 N.Y.S.2d 570, 1941 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5213, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rogoff-v-neal-vanderbilt-sons-corp-nyappdiv-1941.