McCosker v. Rollie Estates, Inc.
| Decision Date | 19 January 1959 |
| Citation | 7 A.D.2d 865,182 N.Y.S.2d 35 |
| Parties | Ida D. McCOSKER, Appellant-Respondent, v. ROLLIE ESTATES, INC., Respondent-Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Seymour Robinowitz, White Plains, for appellant, Rollie Estates, Inc.
J. David Silvers, New York City, for respondent, Ida D. McCosker.
Before NOLAN, P. J., and WENZEL, BELDOCK, MURPHY and KLEINFELD, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In an action pursuant to article 15 of the Real Property Law to determine plaintiff's claim to a strip of real property 50 feet wide and about 489 feet long, to which she claimed title by adverse possession, the defendant interposed a counterclaim pursuant to article 15 of the Real Property Law (1st counterclaim) and to recover damages alleged to have been incurred because of plaintiff's claim to the property (2d counterclaim). After trial without a jury, the court held that plaintiff had proved adverse possession for 11 years, but not for the 15 years required by section 35 of the Civil Practice Act. The Court also held that defendant had record title to the strip, but refused to award it damages. against plaintiff reversed on the judgment entered thereon as is in favor of defendant and against her, and defendant appeals from so much of said judgment as fails to award it damages.
Judgment insofar as it is in favor of plaintiff against defendant affirmed, without costs, and judgment insofar as it is in favor of defendant against plaitiff reversed on the law and the facts, with costs, and judgment directed in favor of plaintiff for the relief demanded in the complaint and dismissing the first counterclaim. Findings of fact insofar as they may be inconsistent herewith are reversed, and new findings are made as indicated herein.
In our opinion, the finding that the possession by plaintiff's predecessor was not under an adverse claim of title is against the weight of the evidence. A finding to the contrary should be made. The entire 50-foot strip was enclosed as part for the main property by a hedge wall, which is sufficient to constitute an enclosure within the meaning of section 40 of the Civil Practice Act. Knapp v. City of New York, 140 App.Div. 289, 125 N.Y.S. 201; Hill v. Edie, 49 Hun 605, 1 N.Y.S. 480, 17 N.Y.St.Rep. 255. The cutting of grass on the 50-foot strip by plaintiff's predecessor was sufficient cultivation thereof in view of the character, condition and location of the property under consideration. Ramapo Mfg....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hyde v. Lawson
...taxes, state, county or municipal, which have been levied and assessed upon such land according to law.'10 McCosker v. Rollie Estates, Inc., 7 A.D.2d 865, 182 N.Y.S.2d 35 (1959).11 28 Idaho 483, 155 P. 288 (1916).12 93 Idaho 188, 457 P.2d 427 (1969).13 93 Idaho 188, at 193, 457 P.2d 427, at......
-
Grant v. Strickland, NN-205
...by scaling fences or trespassing over land of the plaintiffs, the statutory requirements are met. In McCosker v. Rollie Estates, Inc., 7 A.D.2d 865, 182 N.Y.S.2d 35 (1959), the court ruled plaintiff had obtained title by adverse possession without color of title, The entire 50-foot strip wa......
-
Bassett v. Nichols
...to constitute an 'inclosure' within the meaning of section 522 of the Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (McCosker v. Rollie Estates, 7 A.D.2d 865, 182 N.Y.S.2d 35, affd. 8 N.Y.2d 837, 203 N.Y.S.2d 93, 168 N.E.2d 533; Knapp v. City of New York, 140 App.Div. 289, 125 N.Y.S. 201; Hill ......
-
Pildes v. Freedman
...to whether they continually cultivated the property in question for the prescriptive period (see, RPAPL 522; McCosker v. Rollie Estates, 7 A.D.2d 865, 182 N.Y.S.2d 35, affd. 8 N.Y.2d 837, 203 N.Y.S.2d 93, 168 N.E.2d 533; Mastin v. Village of Lima, 86 A.D.2d 777, 448 N.Y.S.2d 274; Bradt v. G......