Opinion
01-02-2015
James G. BRYDEN, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. Leroy HANKINS, Kathryn Capella Hankins and J. Sandra Governanti, Defendants–Respondents.
Hoffmann, Hubert & Hoffmann, LLP, Syracuse (Terrance J. Hoffmann of Counsel), for Plaintiff–Appellant. David C. King, Rochester, for Defendants–Respondents.
Hoffmann, Hubert & Hoffmann, LLP, Syracuse (Terrance J. Hoffmann of Counsel), for Plaintiff–Appellant.
David C. King, Rochester, for Defendants–Respondents.
PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., PERADOTTO, VALENTINO, WHALEN, and DeJOSEPH, JJ.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM:We affirm for reasons stated in the amended decision at Supreme Court. We write to note that, contrary to plaintiff's contention, the record fully supports the court's determination to rely on the Gleason (1998) survey over the Watkins (2005) survey. We also note that, in the absence of a cross appeal by defendants, their contention that the court erred in “not granting all lands north of the intersection of [defendants'] fence and the Gleason line to [defendants]” is not properly before us (see Raab v. Dumblewski, 226 A.D.2d 1021, 1022, 641 N.Y.S.2d 455 ).
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.