Opinion
March 23, 1987
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Benson, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
Although the plaintiffs instituted this proceeding to determine ownership of the property fronting the east side of Emans Road, they failed to introduce into evidence any survey showing the location of the respective properties in relation to the road. Nevertheless, as the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, found, the testimony and documentary evidence belied the plaintiffs' claim that their property line extended to the center of the road. In fact, the defendant's deed explicitly stated that her property extended across the road and included the road itself. The beginning point of the deed description, a stone monument near a locust tree, established the southeast corner of the defendant's property and was found to be some 17 feet distant from the east side of the road. The plaintiffs' predecessor in title admitted that the defendant's predecessor in title owned a strip of land on the east side of Emans Road. To the extent that the deed to the plaintiffs purported to convey land previously conveyed to the defendant, it was ineffective (see, e.g., Morgan v McLoughlin, 6 Misc.2d 434, affd 6 A.D.2d 704, affd 5 N.Y.2d 1041), and the court did not err when it declared that the defendant owned the lands described in her deed.
The plaintiffs' other contentions are without merit. Brown, J.P., Lawrence, Eiber and Sullivan, JJ., concur.