Samonek v. Pratt
| Decision Date | 05 December 2013 |
| Citation | 976 N.Y.S.2d 324,2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 08181,112 A.D.3d 1044 |
| Parties | Joyce I. SAMONEK, Respondent, v. Christopher S. PRATT et al., Appellants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
112 A.D.3d 1044
976 N.Y.S.2d 324
2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 08181
Joyce I. SAMONEK, Respondent,
v.
Christopher S. PRATT et al., Appellants.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
Dec. 5, 2013.
[976 N.Y.S.2d 325]
Fitzgerald Morris Baker Firth, PC, Glens Falls (Martin A. Cohen of counsel), for appellants.
O'Connell Aronowitz, PC, Plattsburgh (Dean C. Schneller of counsel), for respondent.
Before: ROSE, J.P., LAHTINEN, STEIN and GARRY, JJ.
STEIN, J.
Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Muller, J.), entered January 25, 2013 in Clinton County, which, among other things, granted plaintiff's motion to enforce a prior stipulation of settlement between the parties.
The parties own adjacent parcels of property located in the Town of Chazy, Clinton County. Disputes arose between them regarding a 15–foot wide strip of land that runs along the northerly boundary of plaintiff's property and includes a gravel driveway,1 as well as a grassy area between plaintiff's home and the driveway. Specifically, defendants disputed plaintiff's claim of ownership of the grassy area, prompting them to hire a land surveyor who performed a survey (hereinafter the Lashway survey), and to install a wooden fence along the property line between plaintiff's home and the grassy area. Plaintiff then commenced this action seeking, among other things, to quiet title to the disputed grassy area. Defendants answered the complaint and asserted a counterclaim for trespass. The parties thereafter entered into a stipulation of settlement on the record in open court. In short, the agreement provided that the boundary line between their properties would be set by the terms of the Lashway survey, and defendants would grant plaintiff perpetual easements to use the gravel driveway to access her property and to maintain the disputed grassy area. In consideration therefor, plaintiff agreed to pay $4,500 to defendants. Additionally, the stipulation required defendants to remove the wooden fence.2
Defendants thereafter removed a portion of the fence as called for in the stipulation. However, the parties could not agree on the dimensions of plaintiff's easement pertaining to the disputed grassy area. After subsequent negotiations between the parties failed, defendants reinstalled the wooden fence. Consequently, plaintiff filed an application seeking, among other things, enforcement of the stipulation by requiring defendants to remove the fence and imposition of a linear measurement...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Thrun v. Cuomo
-
Ill. Union Ins. Co. v. Midwood Lumber & Millwork, Inc.
...the Incident, Judge Ross necessarily found that the Designated Premises Endorsement is part of the 2012 Policy. See Samonek v. Pratt, 976 N.Y.S.2d 324, 326 (App. Div. 2013) (finding that a contract term was not part of an otherwise valid contract because the parties did not agree to the ter......
-
Carr v. Sheehan
...the surveyor was satisfactory (166 Mamaroneck Ave. Corp., 78 N.Y.2d at 91, 571 N.Y.S.2d 686, 575 N.E.2d 104 ; see Samonek v. Pratt, 112 A.D.3d 1044, 1045, 976 N.Y.S.2d 324 ). The parties' approval of the proposed boundary line was conditioned solely on whether there was enough clearance for......
-
Uniformed Fire Officers Ass'n of Yonkers v. N.Y.S. Pub. Emp't Relations Bd.
...(see Matter of Keil v. New York State Comptroller, 66 A.D.3d 1317, 1318, 887 N.Y.S.2d 377 [2009] ; compare Samonek v. Pratt, 112 A.D.3d 1044, 1045, 976 N.Y.S.2d 324 [2013] ). Thus, as the parties stipulated that the City's unilateral actions impacted current employees in the bargaining unit......