Robbins v. De Lee
| Decision Date | 26 May 1970 |
| Citation | 310 N.Y.S.2d 804,34 A.D.2d 870 |
| Parties | In the Matter of Laura D. ROBBINS, as Executrix of the Estate of Richard M. Robbins, Deceased, Respondent, v. Lansing DE LEE et al., Appellants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
William L. Burke, Hamilton, for respondent.
Egbert L. Wildman, Jr., Syracuse, for appellants.
Before HERLIHY, P.J., and REYNOLDS, GREENBLOTT, COOKE and SWEENEY, JJ.
Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Chenango County, entered August 19, 1969, which declared petitioner entitled to possession of a parcel of real property.
To maintain summary proceedings under subdivision 3 of section 713 of the Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law, commonly known as 'squatter proceedings', it is essential that the occupant sought to be removed, or the person to whom the occupant has succeeded, intruded into or squatted upon the premises, in the first instance, without permission of the owner, his predecessor in title or one entitled to possession (Stier v. President Hotel, 28 A.D.2d 795, 796, 281 N.Y.S.2d 140, 142; Kaufman v. Zash, 7 A.D.2d 927, 928, 183 N.Y.S.2d 704, 706, affd. 7 N.Y.2d 831, 196 N.Y.S.2d 706, 164 N.E.2d 724; Walcer v. Sherman, 123 Misc. 390, 205 N.Y.S. 427). Since the uncontradicted testimony demonstrates that appellants Lansing De Lee and Velma De Lee went into possession of the farm in 1950 under the terms of a contract between them and one of petitioner's predecessors in title, they were neither intruders or squatters (Williams v. Alt, 226 N.Y. 283, 290, 123 N.E. 499, 501) and the proceeding cannot be upheld.
Judgment reversed, on the law, and petition dismissed, with costs.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re 477 W. 142nd St. Hous. Dev. Fund Corp.
... ... who originally entered the premises illegally. See ... Comm'r of Transp. v. Lane , 148 Misc.2d 320, 325 ... (N.Y. Co. Ct. 1990) (“The principle is well settled, ... that one is not a squatter whose entry is with ... permission.”) (citing Matter of Robbins ... ...
-
In re 477 W. 142nd St. Hous. Dev. Fund Corp.
... ... who originally entered the premises illegally. See ... Comm'r of Transp. v. Lane , 148 Misc.2d 320, 325 ... (N.Y. Co. Ct. 1990) (“The principle is well settled, ... that one is not a squatter whose entry is with ... permission.”) (citing Matter of Robbins ... ...
-
Rosefan Const. Corp. v. Salazar
... ... ," it is essential that the occupant sought to be removed, or the person to whom the occupant has succeeded, intruded into or squatted upon the premises, in the first instance, without permission of the owner, his predecessor in title or one entitled to possession (citations follow)." Robbins v. DeLee, 34 A.D.2d 870, 310 N.Y.S.2d 804 (3rd Dept. 1970); Murawski v. Melkum, 71 Misc.2d 575, 336 N.Y.S.2d 845 ... The respondents clearly are not squatters. They did not intrude upon the premises in the first instance without the permission of the deceased tenant who was the ... ...
-
Kassover v. Gordon Family Associates, Inc.
... ... Rockland Corp., 68 Misc.2d 603, 327 N.Y.S.2d 695 (Civ.Ct.N.Y.Co.1971); MacArthur v. Walter, Sup., 182 N.Y.S. 690 (1st Dep't 1920); The Statement v. Pilgrims Landing, Inc., 49 A.D.2d 28, 370 N.Y.S.2d 970 (4th Dep't 1975); Robbins v. DeLee, 34 A.D.2d 870, 310 N.Y.S.2d 804 (3rd Dep't.1970); Kaufman v. Zash, 7 A.D.2d 927, 183 N.Y.S.2d 704 (2nd Dep't.) aff'd. 7 N.Y.2d 831, 196 N.Y.S.2d 706, 164 N.E.2d 724 (1959); Rosefan Constr. Corp. v. Salazar, 114 Misc.2d 956, 452 N.Y.S.2d 1016 (Civ.Ct. Queens Co.1982); Murawski v ... ...