From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Roma

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 1, 1928
223 App. Div. 769 (N.Y. App. Div. 1928)

Opinion

March, 1928.


Judgment of registration reversed upon the law and the facts, with costs, and petition and proceedings dismissed without prejudice and with costs. No grant of the part of the property lying west of the original low-water mark of the East river is established in the record; and since that portion of the property is land under a tidal and navigable body of water (the East river), the title seems still to be in the State of New York, as the upland owner cannot acquire title thereto by filling in or by adverse possession. In any event there is no legal evidence of adverse possession. ( Hinkley v. State of New York, 234 N.Y. 309; Saunders v. N.Y.C. H.R.R.R. Co., 144 id. 75.) The Land Office may furnish the petitioner relief. ( People v. Steeplechase Park Co., 218 N.Y. 459, 478.) Lazansky, P.J., Rich, Young, Seeger and Carswell, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Matter of Roma

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 1, 1928
223 App. Div. 769 (N.Y. App. Div. 1928)
Case details for

Matter of Roma

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of the Petition of LUIGI ROMA, Respondent, to Register the…

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

Date published: Mar 1, 1928

Citations

223 App. Div. 769 (N.Y. App. Div. 1928)

Citing Cases

DiCanio v. Inc. Village of Nissequogue

The presence of the term "rivers" in the appurtenance clause of the Andross Patent does not mandate a…