Simpson v. Chien Yuan Kao

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Simpson v. Chien Yuan Kao

222 A.D.2d 666, 636 N.Y.S.2d 70, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13924

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

DecidedDecember 29, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 222 A.D.2d 666 (Simpson v. Chien Yuan Kao) 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

Simpson v. Chien Yuan Kao, 222 A.D.2d 666, 636 N.Y.S.2d 70, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13924 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action pursuant to RPAPL [667]*667article 15, the defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Gurahian, J.), entered July 21, 1994, as dismissed their counterclaim to obtain title to real property by adverse possession.

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

The proof that the defendants planted and cultivated a few trees on the plaintiff’s property near the boundary line between their property and the plaintiff’s property is insufficient to establish adverse possession by usually cultivating or improving the property in dispute (see, RPAPL 522 [1]; Van Valkenburgh v Lutz, 304 NY 95; City of Tonawanda v Ellicott Cr. Homeowners Assn., 86 AD2d 118). Mangano, P. J., Miller, Copertino, Santucci and Hart, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action pursuant to RPAPL [667]*667article 15, the defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Gurahian, J.), entered July 21, 1994, as dismissed their counterclaim to obtain title to real property by adverse possession.

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

The proof that the defendants planted and cultivated a few trees on the plaintiff’s property near the boundary line between their property and the plaintiff’s property is insufficient to establish adverse possession by usually cultivating or improving the property in dispute (see, RPAPL 522 [1]; Van Valkenburgh v Lutz, 304 NY 95; City of Tonawanda v Ellicott Cr. Homeowners Assn., 86 AD2d 118). Mangano, P. J., Miller, Copertino, Santucci and Hart, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

222 A.D.2d 666, 636 N.Y.S.2d 70, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13924, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/simpson-v-chien-yuan-kao-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack