Legal Opinion

Farrer v. Piecuch

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided July 11, 1951PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

— Judgment affirmed, with costs. Memorandum: Respondents and their predecessors for many years have enjoyed peaceable possession of the filled-in land lying between the road, known as Schnackel Drive, and the present shoreline. That being true, respondents need not prove title to maintain this action founded on trespass. The appellants show no better title, and their trespass cannot be justified upon the weakness of respondents’ title. (Beardslee v. New Berlin Light & Power Co., 207 N. Y. 34.) While we hold that respondents may main*1012tain this action in trespass, we do not pass upon or…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Beardslee v. New Berlin Light & Power Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1912

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. People v. MunafoNew York Court of Appeals · 1980
  2. Allied 31st Avenue Corp. v. City of New YorkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1967
  3. Farrer v. PiecuchNew York Supreme Court · 1952
  4. Cayuga Nation v. JacobsNew York Supreme Court · 2014

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API