From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Halley v. Winnicki

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 23, 1998
255 A.D.2d 489 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Opinion

November 23, 1998

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Silverman, J.).


Ordered that the appeal from the order is dismissed; and it is further,

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed; and it is further,

Ordered that the respondents are awarded one bill of costs.

The appeal from the order must be dismissed because the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of judgment in the action ( see, Matter of Aho, 39 N.Y.2d 241, 248).

A party seeking to obtain title by adverse possession on a claim rot based upon a written instrument must produce evidence that the subject premises was either "usually cultivated or improved" or "protected by a substantial enclosure" (RPAPL 522). In addition, the party must establish, by clear and convincing evidence, the common-law requirement of demonstrating that the possession of the parcel was hostile, under a claim of right, actual, open, notorious, and exclusive, and it must have been continuous for the statutory period ( see, Brand v. Prince, 35 N.Y.2d 634; Manhattan School of Music v. Solow, 175 A.D.2d 106). We agree with the trial court's determination that the plaintiffs failed to establish these elements by clear and convincing evidence. Thus, the plaintiffs' claim of adverse possession must fail. Moreover, an easement by prescription has not been made out ( see, Di Leo v. Pecksto Holding Corp., 304 N.Y. 505, 510-512; 2239 Hylan Blvd. Corp. v. Saccheri, 188 A.D.2d 524, 525; see also, Brocco v. Mileo, 144 A.D.2d 200, 201).

Furthermore, the record does not indicate that the defendants' failure to list the identities of two of their witnesses was willful or contumacious. Thus, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the plaintiffs' application to preclude the testimony of these witnesses ( see, Guillen v. New York City Tr. Auth., 192 A.D.2d 506; Burton v New York City Hous. Auth., 191 A.D.2d 669; DeJesus v. Finnegan, 137 A.D.2d 649; Bermudez v. Laminates Unlimited, 134 A.D.2d 314).

Bracken, J. P., Miller, O'Brien and Santucci, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Halley v. Winnicki

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 23, 1998
255 A.D.2d 489 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
Case details for

Halley v. Winnicki

Case Details

Full title:ELMER HALLEY et al., Appellants, v. ROBERT WINNICKI et al., Respondents

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Nov 23, 1998

Citations

255 A.D.2d 489 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
681 N.Y.S.2d 60

Citing Cases

SIMMONS v. AAA BUFFALO DEVELOPMENT CORP.

Moreover, it appears that plaintiffs' expert's conclusions are not based on an examination of the subject…

Silvio Management Corp. v. Russo

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs. A party seeking to acquire title by adverse possession must…