Case ID: ad_219/html/0719-11.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Second Department,
    January, 1927.
    Emma R. Duncan, Respondent, v. Joseph L. Cuozzo, Appellant.
    
      Ejectment — encroachment—judgment granting plaintiff mandatory injunction to compel removal of encroachment is affirmed.
    
    Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the plaintiff, entered in the Westchester county clerk’s office on August 3, 1926, upon the decision of the court rendered after a trial at the Westchester Special Term, in an action in ejectment and to obtain mandatory injunction compelling removal of an encroachment on plaintiff’s premises.
   Per Curiam.

The evidence sustains the finding of the learned trial justice that the defendant willfully and deliberately encroached upon the plaintiff’s property after notice. The boundary line between the two properties is clearly set out in the title deeds of both plaintiff and defendant. There is no evidence that the remains of the old dilapidated fence were ever regarded as the boundary line, and it cannot be seriously contended that there is any evidence justifying a finding of adverse possession in defendant. The common owner and her heirs definitely located the boundary line in the deeds to the respective parties. The courts cannot countenance any such invasion of the property rights of a litigant as appears on the evidence in this case. The judgment should be affirmed, with costs. Present — Kelly, P. J., Manning, Young, Kapper and Lazansky, JJ. Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs.