You are here: / / Doctrine of “Practical Location” (to Determine Boundary Line)...

Doctrine of “Practical Location” (to Determine Boundary Line) Explained

In affirming Supreme Court’s determination of the location of a boundary line, the Third Department explained the doctrine of “practical location” which is used when the description of the land in deeds is inadequate:

As a general proposition, “[d]eeds and surveys indicate boundary lines by various descriptive elements or ‘calls’ which consist mainly of monuments, courses and distances, adjacent lands and area or quantity” … . Here, however, … our review confirms — that the subject deeds contain no specific bearings or directional calls and set forth only the vaguest description of the intended boundary line between the land originally conveyed to plaintiff and Laight. Indeed, [a surveyor] opined that the deeds in question were “so bad” that a boundary line could not be established absent either a boundary line agreement, which the parties apparently were unable to forge, or judicial intervention … . To that end, where a dispute exists as to the location of a boundary line, “the intent of the parties existing at the time of the original conveyance of the disputed property controls” … . Pursuant to the doctrine of practical location, “the practical location of a boundary line and an acquiescence of the parties therein for a period of more than [the statutory period governing adverse possession] is conclusive of the location of the boundary line” … . “[A]pplication of the doctrine requires a clear demarcation of a boundary line and proof that there is mutual acquiescence to the boundary by the parties such that it is definitely and equally known, understood and settled” … . Gibbs v Porath, 2014 NY Slip Op 07030, 3rd Dept 10-16-14

In another case, the Third Department found the “practical location” doctrine inapplicable.  Kennedy v Nimons, 2014 NY Slip Op 07036, 3rd Dept 10-16-14

 

You might also like
SECURITY CONSULTANT WAS EMPLOYEE OF OFF-TRACK BETTING FACILITY DESPITE INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR DESIGNATION IN AGREEMENT.
NON-SECURE JUVENILE DETENTION FACILITY DID NOT OWE A DUTY OF CARE TO PLAINTIFF WHO WAS STRUCK BY A CAR DRIVEN BY A FORMER RESIDENT OF THE FACILITY.
DESPITE THE APPARENT FAILURE TO PRESERVE A VIDEO OF A MEETING DURING WHICH PETITIONER ALLEGEDLY PLANNED A DEMONSTRATION AT THE PRISON, THE DETERMINATION FINDING PETITIONER GUILTY OF PLANNING THE DEMONSTRATION WAS CONFIRMED; THE DISSENT ARGUED PETITIONER WAS DEPRIVED OF DUE PROCESS BY THE FAILURE TO TURN OVER THE VIDEO, WHICH HAD BEEN REVIEWED BY THE OFFICER WHO PREPARED THE MISBEHAVIOR REPORT (THIRD DEPT).
FIRE REKINDLED AFTER FIRE DEPARTMENT PERSONNEL ASSURED PLAINTIFFS THE FIRE WAS OUT, NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE CITY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THERE WAS A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CITY AND PLAINTIFFS.
RETROACTIVE APPLICATION OF THE FORECLOSURE ABUSE PREVENTION ACT (FAPA) WHERE FINAL JUDGMENT HAS NOT BEEN RENDERED DOES NOT VIOLATE PLAINTIFF’S DUE PROCESS RIGHTS; HERE THE DEBT WAS ACCELERATED IN 2008 AND THE CURRENT FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING IS THEREFORE UNTIMELY PURSUANT TO THE FAPA (THIRD DEPT). ​
ALTHOUGH THE JUDGE DID NOT COMMIT TO CONCURRENT SENTENCES, THE PLEA AGREEMENT CONTEMPLATED CONCURRENT SENTENCES AND THE JUDGE’S STATEMENTS CREATED CONFUSION ON THE ISSUE; IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, AND TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE CONTENTS OF THE PRESENTENCE REPORT, THE CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES WERE VACATED AND CONCURRENT SENTENCES WERE IMPOSED (THIRD DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP EXISTED WHICH WOULD SUPPORT THE INSURANCE MALPRACTICE ACTION.
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER STACKED SCAFFOLDING, WHICH WAS ON THE SAME LEVEL AS PLAINTIFF, CONSTITUTED A “PHYSICALLY SIGNIFICANT ELEVATION DIFFERENTIAL,” SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

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 © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Out-of-Possession Landlord Not Liable Based Upon Right to Enter Premises to... After a Mistrial in a Criminal Matter, a Prohibition Action Seeking to Bar Retrial...