You are here: / / Question of Fact Whether Abutting Landowners Owned to the Centerline of...

Question of Fact Whether Abutting Landowners Owned to the Centerline of the Roadway Bed, Relevant Law Explained

Reversing Supreme Court, the Second Department determined there was a question of fact whether abutting landowners owned to the centerline of a roadway bed, or whether defendants had acquired title to the roadway bed. The court explained the relevant analytical criteria:

” [W]hen an owner of property sells a lot with reference to a map, and the map shows that the lot abuts upon a street, the conveyance presumptively conveys fee ownership to the center of the street on which the lot abuts, subject to the rights of other lot owners and their invitees to use the entire area of the street for highway purposes'” … .

“The presumption is not, however, inflexible and will yield to a showing in the deed of a contrary intent to exclude from the grant the bed of the street” … . Indeed, the presumption can be rebutted ” by determining the intent of the parties gathered from the description of the premises [conveyed] read in connection with the other parts of the deed, and by reference to the situation of the lands and the condition and relation of the parties to those lands and other lands in the vicinity'” … . Thus, the presumption can be rebutted by a showing in the deed of a contrary intent to exclude from the grant the bed of the street … . Stanley Acker Family L.P. v DePaulis Enters. V, Ltd., 2015 NY Slip Op 07259, 2nd Dept 10-7-15

 

You might also like
QUEENS COUNTY ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED ON THE GROUND IT WAS SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME AS THE NASSAU COUNTY ACTION, A CORPORATION IS NOT THE SAME PARTY AS A PRINCIPAL OF THE CORPORATION WITHOUT A SHOWING THE CORPORATE VEIL SHOULD BE PIERCED (SECOND DEPT).
A CON EDISION TRANSFORMER MINI PAD WHICH ENCROACHED SIX INCHES ONTO PLAINTIFFS’ PROPERTY WAS A TRESPASS ENTITLING PLAINTIFFS TO NOMINAL DAMAGES; THE STICKER ON THE TRANSFORMER WARNING TO STAY THREE FEET AWAY FROM THE TRANSFORMER WAS A NUISANCE, AN INTANGIBLE INTRUSION, NOT A TRESPASS (SECOND DEPT). ​
The Criteria for an Exception to the “Best Evidence Rule” for Admission of an Agreement, the Terms of Which Were In Dispute, Were Not Met—New Trial Ordered
ACTIONS AGAINST THE COUNTY STEMMING FROM PLAINTIFF’S EXPOSURE TO ASBESTOS WHILE WORKING ON COUNTY PROPERTY WERE TIME BARRED, INCLUDING AN ACTION ALLEGING FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT OF THE PRESENCE OF ASBESTOS (SECOND DEPT).
“Serious Physical Injury” Element of Gang Assault Not Supported by Legally Sufficient Evidence
Causes of Action Seeking Monetary Damages Were Not Incidental to the Article 78 Causes of Action and, Therefore, Were Not Subject to the Four-Month Statute of Limitations
PLAINTIFF DID NOT SHOW DUE DILIGENCE IN ASCERTAINING THE NAME OF THE PARTY REFERRED TO AS “JOHN DOE” IN THE COMPLIANT RENDERING THE ACTION TIME-BARRED; ALTHOUGH THE COURT PROPERLY DEEMED PROOF OF SERVICE OF THE COMPLAINT AGAINST THE NAMED PARTY TIMELY FILED NUNC PRO TUNC, THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST THE NAMED PARTY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED RETROACTIVELY ONCE THE DEFECT WAS CURED (SECOND DEPT).
Defendant Should Have Been Advised of His Right to Be Heard in Resentencing Proceeding Pursuant to CPL 440.46

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Elements of Causes of Action for (1) Misappropriation of (a) Trade Secrets,... Exclusion of Defendant’s Brother from the Courtroom Based Upon the Fear...