State v. Case

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

State v. Case

45 A.D.2d 779, 356 N.Y.S.2d 717, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4678

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

DecidedJune 20, 1974

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 45 A.D.2d 779 (State v. Case) 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

State v. Case, 45 A.D.2d 779, 356 N.Y.S.2d 717, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4678 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court at Special Term, entered August 13, 1973 in Madison County, which denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. The plaintiff is clearly correct that adverse possession cannot be used against the State (e.g. Smith v. People, 9 A D 2d 205). However, the plaintiff also seeks injunctive relief to enjoin the defendants “from going on and utilizing the said lands for their own purposes ” and to compel the removal “from the said lands all buildings [and] structures * 55 • encroaching upon or interfering” with the subject land. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to this relief against any or all of the defendants cannot be decided on the instant record. There are presented issues as to title and defendants’ possible rights of use of the land involved which must be explored at a plenary trial. Order affirmed, without costs. Herlihy, P. J., Greenblott, Sweeney, Main and Reynolds, JJ., concur.

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

— Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court at Special Term, entered August 13, 1973 in Madison County, which denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. The plaintiff is clearly correct that adverse possession cannot be used against the State (e.g. Smith v. People, 9 A D 2d 205). However, the plaintiff also seeks injunctive relief to enjoin the defendants “from going on and utilizing the said lands for their own purposes ” and to compel the removal “from the said lands all buildings [and] structures * 55 • encroaching upon or interfering” with the subject land. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to this relief against any or all of the defendants cannot be decided on the instant record. There are presented issues as to title and defendants’ possible rights of use of the land involved which must be explored at a plenary trial. Order affirmed, without costs. Herlihy, P. J., Greenblott, Sweeney, Main and Reynolds, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

45 A.D.2d 779, 356 N.Y.S.2d 717, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4678, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-case-nyappdiv-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack