Koether v. Generalow
| Citation | 213 A.D.2d 379,623 N.Y.S.2d 328 |
| Parties | Karl KOETHER, et al., Appellants, v. Olga GENERALOW, Respondent. |
| Decision Date | 06 March 1995 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court Appellate Division |
Kleinman, Saltzman & Goodfriend, P.C., West Nyack (Ronald W. Weiner, of counsel), for appellants.
Hurwitz & Hurwitz, P.C., New City (Martin Hurwitz, of counsel), for respondent.
Before BALLETTA, J.P., and O'BRIEN, THOMPSON and RITTER, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for trespass to real property, the plaintiffs appeal, (1) as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Weiner, J.), dated October 29, 1993, as denied their motion for summary judgment and to dismiss the defendant's counterclaim, and (2) from an order of the same court dated March 28, 1994, which denied their motion for reargument.
ORDERED that the plaintiffs are awarded one bill of costs.
The instant action represents the second round in a boundary dispute between two adjacent landowners in Nyack. In a previous court action between the defendant Olga Generalow and the plaintiffs' predecessors in title, this court held that while a driveway and a retaining wall built by the plaintiffs' predecessors had encroached across the property line shown on Generalow's survey, "title to all but 8.4 inches of that property had passed to the [plaintiffs' predecessors] by virtue of their adverse possession of the land" ( Generalow v. Steinberger, 131 A.D.2d 634, 517 N.Y.S.2d 22). Moreover, it was also held that the 8.4 inch encroachment was de minimis and that Generalow was, therefore, not entitled to an injunction compelling the plaintiffs' predecessors to remove the wall (see, Generalow v. Steinberger, supra ). The plaintiffs commenced the instant action after Generalow placed a metal stake into their driveway and painted a yellow line down their driveway purportedly to represent her property line. In addition, Generalow removed a wooden fence that she alleged the plaintiffs had constructed on her side of the property line.
On appeal, the plaintiffs contend that the prior...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Palermo v. Palermo
...414 N.Y.S.2d 308, 386 N.E.2d 1328 (1979); Luscher v. Arrua, 21 A.D.3d 1005, 801 N.Y.S.2d 379 (2nd Dept.2005); Koether v. Generalow, 213 A.D.2d 379, 623 N.Y.S.2d 328 (2nd Dept.1995); New York Site Development Corporation v. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, 217 A.D.2d ......
-
Ferris v. Cuevas
...445 N.Y.S.2d 68, 429 N.E.2d 746 (1981)); see also, Reilly, 45 N.Y.2d at 29, 407 N.Y.S.2d at 648, 379 N.E.2d at 176; Koether, 213 A.D.2d at 380, 623 N.Y.S.2d at 329-30; Restatement § Following a valid final judgment, therefore, res judicata bars future litigation between the same parties, or......
-
Cook v. Achzet
...a different remedy (see Parris v. Oliva , 276 A.D.2d 762, 762, 715 N.Y.S.2d 716 [2d Dept. 2000] ; Koether v. Generalow , 213 A.D.2d 379, 380-381, 623 N.Y.S.2d 328 [2d Dept. 1995] ; O'Connell v. Hill , 179 A.D.2d 1057, 1057-1058, 579 N.Y.S.2d 291 [4th Dept. 1992] ).Moreover, contrary to plai......
-
Fandy Corp. v. Lung-Fong Chen
...and not to those issues which could have been litigated (see, Mahl v. Citibank, 234 A.D.2d 348, 651 N.Y.S.2d 543; Koether v. Generalow, 213 A.D.2d 379, 380, 623 N.Y.S.2d 328). Two requirements must be met. First, the identical issue necessarily must have been decided in the prior action and......