Wathley v. Rosen

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Wathley v. Rosen

19 A.D.2d 755, 242 N.Y.S.2d 895, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3355

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

DecidedJuly 8, 1963

StatusPublished

This text of 19 A.D.2d 755 (Wathley v. Rosen) 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

Wathley v. Rosen, 19 A.D.2d 755, 242 N.Y.S.2d 895, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3355 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

In consolidated actions pursuant to article 15 of the Real Property Law, to establish a roadway easement by prescription and to enjoin interference therewith, the plaintiff in both actions appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, entered July 19, 1962 upon the court’s decision, after a nonjury trial before an Official Referee, which dismissed the complaint upon the merits. Judgment affirmed, with costs to defendants Rosen and Soukup only. In order to satisfy the 15-year prescriptive period, the plaintiff was required to establish “ tacking ”, The learned Official Referee properly found that the evidence failed to establish either: (1) a continuous, adverse use of the roadway, under claim of right, by plaintiff’s predecessors in title; or (2) any intent by such predecessors in title to convey any rights in the roadway to plaintiff and his wife (Jacobs v. Lewicki, 12 A D 2d 625, affd. 10 Y Y 2d 778; Van Roo v. Van Roo, 268 App. Div. 170, affd. 294 Y. Y. 731). Moreover, the proof failed to establish the essential continuous, exclusive and adverse use of the roadway, under claim of right, by the plaintiff himself (Firman v. Confer, 273 Y. Y. 357; Belotti v. Bickhardt, 228 Y. Y. 296, 302). Ughetta, Acting P. J., Kleinfeld, Christ, Brennan and Hopkins JJ., concur.

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

In consolidated actions pursuant to article 15 of the Real Property Law, to establish a roadway easement by prescription and to enjoin interference therewith, the plaintiff in both actions appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, entered July 19, 1962 upon the court’s decision, after a nonjury trial before an Official Referee, which dismissed the complaint upon the merits. Judgment affirmed, with costs to defendants Rosen and Soukup only. In order to satisfy the 15-year prescriptive period, the plaintiff was required to establish “ tacking ”, The learned Official Referee properly found that the evidence failed to establish either: (1) a continuous, adverse use of the roadway, under claim of right, by plaintiff’s predecessors in title; or (2) any intent by such predecessors in title to convey any rights in the roadway to plaintiff and his wife (Jacobs v. Lewicki, 12 A D 2d 625, affd. 10 Y Y 2d 778; Van Roo v. Van Roo, 268 App. Div. 170, affd. 294 Y. Y. 731). Moreover, the proof failed to establish the essential continuous, exclusive and adverse use of the roadway, under claim of right, by the plaintiff himself (Firman v. Confer, 273 Y. Y. 357; Belotti v. Bickhardt, 228 Y. Y. 296, 302). Ughetta, Acting P. J., Kleinfeld, Christ, Brennan and Hopkins JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 A.D.2d 755, 242 N.Y.S.2d 895, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3355, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wathley-v-rosen-nyappdiv-1963.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack