Mahar v. Larkin

• Decision Date: 24 April 1992
• Parties: Joseph MAHAR, Appellant, v. William LARKIN and Sally Larkin, Respondents.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 881

582 N.Y.S.2d 881

182 A.D.2d 1100

Joseph MAHAR, Appellant, v. William LARKIN and Sally Larkin, Respondents.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division,

Fourth Department.

April 24, 1992.

Swartz, Evans, Dickinson, Tinker & Timmerman, P.C. by Robert Billote, Watertown, for appellant.

Conboy, McKay, Bachman & Kendall, by Edward Sheats, Jr., Watertown, for respondents.

Before DENMAN, P.J., and GREEN, PINE, BALIO and FALLON, JJ.

MEMORANDUM:

We reject plaintiff's contention that Supreme Court erroneously found that defendants had adversely possessed the concrete slab. The court's findings of fact, which are fully supported by the record, established that defendants' possession of the concrete slab, used as a boat launch, was hostile and under claim of right, actual, open and notorious, exclusive and continuous for the statutory period (see, Belotti v. Bickhardt, 228 N.Y. 296, 302, 127 N.E. 239; Doherty v. Matsell, 119 N.Y. 646, 23 N.E. 994; City of Tonawanda v. Ellicott Creek Homeowners Assn., 86 A.D.2d 118, 120, 449 N.Y.S.2d 116; see also, Chavoustie v. Stone St. Baptist Church of Chaumont, 171 A.D.2d 1055, 569 N.Y.S.2d 528).

We also reject plaintiff's contention that defendants' claim was barred because plaintiff had paid real property taxes on the disputed property (see, Consolidated Ice Co. v. Mayor, etc. of New York, 166 N.Y. 92, 101, 59 N.E. 713; see also, Archibald v. N.Y.C. & H.R.R.R. Co., 157 N.Y. 574, 583, 52 N.E. 567).

Judgment unanimously affirmed with costs.