Wasson v. Bond
| Citation | 914 N.Y.S.2d 920,80 A.D.3d 1114 |
| Parties | William E. WASSON et al., Respondents, v. Ruth BOND, Appellant. |
| Decision Date | 27 January 2011 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court Appellate Division |
Kernan & Kernan, P.C., Utica (Leighton R. Burns of counsel), for appellant.
Cohen & Cohen, L.L.P., Utica (Daniel S. Cohen of counsel), for respondents.
Before: SPAIN, J.P., ROSE, LAHTINEN, KAVANAGH and GARRY, JJ.
Appeals (1) from an order of the Supreme Court (Burns, J.), entered November 19, 2009 in Otsego County, which, in an action pursuant to RPAPL article 15, granted plaintiffs' motion to preclude defendant from introducing certain deeds as evidence that defendant had acquired fee simple title to certain real property, and (2) from a judgment of said court, entered January 6, 2010 in Otsego County, upon a verdict rendered in favor of plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs commenced this action pursuant to RPAPL article 15 to compel a determination of their claim to a disputed parcel of real property located in the Town of Otsego, Otsego County. Defendant answered, asserting that she became theowner in fee of the disputed parcel by virtue of quit claim deeds from Southern New York Railway, Inc. and, prior thereto, she had acquired title by adverse possession. When plaintiffs moved for summary judgment, Supreme Court (Coccoma, J.) expressly found that defendant did not acquire a fee title to the disputed parcel, but denied the motion on the ground that there were material issues of fact as to whether defendant acquired title by adverse possession. Plaintiffs later moved in limine to preclude defendant from introducing the quitclaim deeds into evidence attrial, and Supreme Court (Burns, J.) granted the motion on the ground that the fee title issue had already been determined against defendant in the earlier order and it was the law of the case. Following a jury trial, a judgment in plaintiffs' favor was entered.
Defendant appeals,1 contending that the earlier motion for summary judgment had been denied in all respects and, therefore, the subsequent motion in limine was improperly treated as a motion to reargue the earlier motion. We disagree. Supreme Court correctly construed the express language of the earlier decision and order, and relied on the doctrine of law of the case in concluding that the legal issue of the effect of the quitclaim deeds had already been resolved against defendant. Thus, the court properly limited defendant's proof to the sole issue of adverse possession ( see CPLR 3212 [g]; see also Siewert v. Loudonville Elementary School, 210 A.D.2d 568, 569, 620 N.Y.S.2d 149 [1994] ). To the extent that defendant argues that the court improperly relied on the prior order in that it was made without the benefit of the affidavit of defendant's title...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Thompson v. Saratoga Cnty. Dep't of Soc. Servs. (In re Estate of Shambo)
...of duty and that petitioners, who were required to lay bare their proof in opposition to respondent's motion (see Wasson v. Bond, 80 A.D.3d 1114, 1115, 914 N.Y.S.2d 920 [2011] ; Johnson v. Title N., Inc., 31 A.D.3d 1071, 1072, 820 N.Y.S.2d 345 [2006] ), failed to raise a triable question of......
-
Wasson v. Bond
...it had been determined that plaintiffs' predecessors in interest held valid title to the disputed property ( see Wasson v. Bond, 80 A.D.3d 1114, 914 N.Y.S.2d 920 [2011] ).1 Supreme Court granted plaintiffs' motion and defendants appeal. Supreme Court properly dismissed defendants' countercl......
- Strommer v. N.Y. State and Local Police and Fire Ret. Sys.
-
Smith v. Town of Colonie
...––– N.Y.3d –––, ––––, 2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 07048, *4–5 [2012];Matter of Aho, 39 N.Y.2d at 248, 383 N.Y.S.2d 285, 347 N.E.2d 647;Wasson v. Bond, 80 A.D.3d 1114, 1115 n., 914 N.Y.S.2d 920 [2011] ). The judgment is not before us, however, because plaintiff did not appeal from it, and we reject h......