Titus Mill Pond, Inc. v. Board of Trustees

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Titus Mill Pond, Inc. v. Board of Trustees

99 A.D.2d 829, 472 N.Y.S.2d 95, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17237

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

DecidedFebruary 27, 1984

StatusPublished

This text of 99 A.D.2d 829 (Titus Mill Pond, Inc. v. Board of Trustees) 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

Titus Mill Pond, Inc. v. Board of Trustees, 99 A.D.2d 829, 472 N.Y.S.2d 95, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17237 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action pursuant to RPAPL article 15, defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Mclnemey, J.), entered March 30,1981, which determined that plaintiff was the fee owner of the subject property. Judgment affirmed, with costs. The trial court correctly determined that the language of the 1774 grant from the then trustees of the Town of Huntington, to one Sylvanus Townsend, to whom plaintiff can trace its title, did convey an estate in fee, although subject to a reverter in the town, which has since been foreclosed through RPAPL 612. The [830]*830greater weight of the evidence at trial, as to colonial custom and usage, also supported the finding of a fee interest in plaintiff. Contrary to defendant’s contention, the case cited by it is not a controlling precedent. Also, collateral estoppel may not be applied against this plaintiff, as it was not demonstrated that plaintiff had had a full and fair opportunity to contest that prior determination (see Titus Mill Pond v Board of Trustees, 60 AD2d 868; Gilberg v Barbieri, 53 NY2d 285,292; Gramatan Home Investors Corp. v Lopez, 46 NY2d 481, 483). Mangano, J. P., Gibbons, Thompson and Rubin, JJ., concur.

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

In an action pursuant to RPAPL article 15, defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Mclnemey, J.), entered March 30,1981, which determined that plaintiff was the fee owner of the subject property. Judgment affirmed, with costs. The trial court correctly determined that the language of the 1774 grant from the then trustees of the Town of Huntington, to one Sylvanus Townsend, to whom plaintiff can trace its title, did convey an estate in fee, although subject to a reverter in the town, which has since been foreclosed through RPAPL 612. The [830]*830greater weight of the evidence at trial, as to colonial custom and usage, also supported the finding of a fee interest in plaintiff. Contrary to defendant’s contention, the case cited by it is not a controlling precedent. Also, collateral estoppel may not be applied against this plaintiff, as it was not demonstrated that plaintiff had had a full and fair opportunity to contest that prior determination (see Titus Mill Pond v Board of Trustees, 60 AD2d 868; Gilberg v Barbieri, 53 NY2d 285,292; Gramatan Home Investors Corp. v Lopez, 46 NY2d 481, 483). Mangano, J. P., Gibbons, Thompson and Rubin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

99 A.D.2d 829, 472 N.Y.S.2d 95, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17237, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/titus-mill-pond-inc-v-board-of-trustees-nyappdiv-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack