Watson v. Herrick

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Watson v. Herrick

43 A.D.2d 644, 349 N.Y.S.2d 805, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3147

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

DecidedNovember 15, 1973

StatusPublished

This text of 43 A.D.2d 644 (Watson v. Herrick) 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

Watson v. Herrick, 43 A.D.2d 644, 349 N.Y.S.2d 805, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3147 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Ulster County, in an action commenced pursuant to article 15 of the Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law, to determine title to a parcel of land situated within the Counties of Ulster and Delaware. The present litigation stems from an ambiguity as to the location of the westerly boundary of respondents’ property. The respondents’ boundary is described in the deed at issue as running along a stone wall assertedly on the Ulster-Delaware County line. However, there are present two stone walls some 900 to 925 feet apart which could possibly form the western border and neither follows the county line. The trial court in its decision analyzed all the evidence .before it and concluded that appellant had not established her claim to the disputed property but rather that respondents had developed the most convincing proof as to the intended boundary. We can find no basis to disturb the thorough analysis and well reasoned decision of the trial court. Nor can we find any merit in the additional contentions raised by appellant and, accordingly, the judgment should be affirmed, [645]*645Judgment affirmed, with costs. Staley, Jr., J. P., Greenblott, Cooke, Main and Reynolds, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Ulster County, in an action commenced pursuant to article 15 of the Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law, to determine title to a parcel of land situated within the Counties of Ulster and Delaware. The present litigation stems from an ambiguity as to the location of the westerly boundary of respondents’ property. The respondents’ boundary is described in the deed at issue as running along a stone wall assertedly on the Ulster-Delaware County line. However, there are present two stone walls some 900 to 925 feet apart which could possibly form the western border and neither follows the county line. The trial court in its decision analyzed all the evidence .before it and concluded that appellant had not established her claim to the disputed property but rather that respondents had developed the most convincing proof as to the intended boundary. We can find no basis to disturb the thorough analysis and well reasoned decision of the trial court. Nor can we find any merit in the additional contentions raised by appellant and, accordingly, the judgment should be affirmed, [645]*645Judgment affirmed, with costs. Staley, Jr., J. P., Greenblott, Cooke, Main and Reynolds, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

43 A.D.2d 644, 349 N.Y.S.2d 805, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3147, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/watson-v-herrick-nyappdiv-1973.