Rowland v. Crystal Bay Construction, Inc.
| Decision Date | 21 January 2003 |
| Citation | 754 N.Y.S.2d 53,301 A.D.2d 585 |
| Parties | RICHARD ROWLAND et al., Appellants,<BR>v.<BR>CRYSTAL BAY CONSTRUCTION, INC., Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The dispute in this case arises from successive surveys of the plaintiffs' property which differ by an area measuring 27.75 feet by 200 feet (hereinafter the disputed parcel). Before purchasing vacant land in February 1986, the plaintiffs commissioned Hawkins Webb Jaeger Associates (hereinafter Hawkins Webb) to perform a survey. After the survey, the plaintiffs acquired title by deed which described the property as lots 41-45 and lots 84-93 on the filed Map of Keewaydin Park. Thereafter, in March 1987 Hawkins Webb presented the plaintiffs with an unsolicited corrected survey which reduced the dimensions of their property by a parcel of 27.75 feet by 200 feet. The plaintiffs did not contest the March 1987 revised survey, and in fact they relied upon it to obtain a certificate of occupancy for their newly-built house, and in an abandonment proceeding in 2000 in which they acquired title to part of an unopened road adjacent to their property. The plaintiffs allege in their complaint that they believed the true dimensions of their property were as set forth in the February 1986 survey and that they continuously occupied the disputed parcel as their own from 1986 onward.
In 1999 the defendant commissioned Hawkins Webb to map property owned by Alexander Poulianos and John Alexander Poulianos (hereinafter the Poulianos property), which was adjacent to the plaintiffs' property on the Map of Keewaydin Park. Based upon this survey, the defendant purchased the Poulianos property and filed an approved "Subdivision Map of Poulianos." When the defendant began building homes on two of its lots within the disputed parcel, the plaintiffs commenced this action to quiet title in themselves. As an alternative cause of action, the plaintiffs alleged that they adversely possessed the disputed parcel by installing improvements such as a shed, dog run, playset, and drainage ravine. Additionally, the plaintiffs claimed that they cleared vegetation and debris, and planted and maintained grass, stored wood and construction materials, and dumped leaves on the disputed parcel. After joinder of issue, the defendant moved for summary judgment. The Supreme Court found that issues of fact existed with respect to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Almeida v. Wells
...702, 703, 883 N.Y.S.2d 563; see Giannone v. Trotwood Corp., 266 A.D.2d 430, 698 N.Y.S.2d 698; see also Rowland v. Crystal Bay Constr., 301 A.D.2d 585, 586, 754 N.Y.S.2d 53). In addition, the party claiming title must demonstrate, by clear and convincing evidence, satisfaction of the followi......
-
Finger v. 162 Grand St. Realty, LLC
...disputed property was either "usually cultivated or improved" or "protected by a substantial inclosure" (see Rowland v. Crystal Bay Constr., 301 A.D.2d 585, 585–586, 754 N.Y.S.2d 53 ). Further, we agree with the court's determination granting the defendant's cross motion for summary judgmen......
-
Skyview Motel Llc v. Wald
...it or that it was substantially enclosed ( see Almeida v. Wells, 74 A.D.3d 1256, 904 N.Y.S.2d 736; Rowland v. Crystal Bay Constr., 301 A.D.2d 585, 754 N.Y.S.2d 53). The defendant's remaining contention is without merit. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the plaintiff's motion ......
- ORANGE COUNTY-POUGHKEEPSIE MSA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP v. COMMUNICATIONS CONCEPTS OF NEW YORK, INC.