Wittus v. Dodge

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Wittus v. Dodge

305 A.D.2d 404, 758 N.Y.S.2d 515, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5082

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

DecidedMay 5, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 305 A.D.2d 404 (Wittus v. Dodge) 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

Wittus v. Dodge, 305 A.D.2d 404, 758 N.Y.S.2d 515, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5082 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action pursuant to RPAPL article 15 to determine claims to real property by adverse possession, the defendant Geoffrey Dodge, sued herein as Jeffrey Dodge, appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (DiBlasi, J.), dated September 4, 2002, which, after a nonjury trial, granted the plaintiffs “sole right, title, interest and ownership” of the subject property.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the appellant’s motion for leave to amend his answer, made on the eve of trial (see Danne v Otis El. Corp., 276 AD2d 581, 582 [2000]; DeNicola v Mary Immaculate Hosp., 272 AD2d 505, 506 [2000]; Smith v Plaza Transp. Ambulance Serv., 243 AD2d 555 [1997]; Volpe v Good Samaritan Hosp., 213 AD2d 398 [1995]; Fulford v Baker Perkins, Inc., 100 AD2d 861 [1984]).

The appellant’s remaining contentions either are unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Prudenti, P.J., Ritter, Feuerstein and Crane, 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 to determine claims to real property by adverse possession, the defendant Geoffrey Dodge, sued herein as Jeffrey Dodge, appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (DiBlasi, J.), dated September 4, 2002, which, after a nonjury trial, granted the plaintiffs “sole right, title, interest and ownership” of the subject property.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the appellant’s motion for leave to amend his answer, made on the eve of trial (see Danne v Otis El. Corp., 276 AD2d 581, 582 [2000]; DeNicola v Mary Immaculate Hosp., 272 AD2d 505, 506 [2000]; Smith v Plaza Transp. Ambulance Serv., 243 AD2d 555 [1997]; Volpe v Good Samaritan Hosp., 213 AD2d 398 [1995]; Fulford v Baker Perkins, Inc., 100 AD2d 861 [1984]).

The appellant’s remaining contentions either are unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Prudenti, P.J., Ritter, Feuerstein and Crane, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

305 A.D.2d 404, 758 N.Y.S.2d 515, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5082, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wittus-v-dodge-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack