From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Phillips v. Town of Stony Point

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 26, 1984
104 A.D.2d 1033 (N.Y. App. Div. 1984)

Opinion

October 26, 1984

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Ruskin, J.).


Order reversed, insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements, the Jacobsens' motion to vacate the prior judgment insofar as it applies to the 50-foot-wide easement on their property is granted, and the judgment is modified accordingly.

Because the declaratory judgment dated July 8, 1982 affects the rights of the Jacobsens, they should have been joined in the action (see CPLR 1001, subd. [a]). Thus, Special Term acted improperly in rendering a declaratory judgment concerning the 50-foot-wide easement located on the Jacobsens' property when the Jacobsens did not have an opportunity to be heard (see Cadman Mem. Congregational Soc. v Kenyon, 279 App. Div. 1015, 1016, aff'd 306 N.Y. 151). Accordingly, that portion of the judgment should be set aside.

We note that the precise issue raised herein has been raised in at least two other lawsuits presently pending in which the Jacobsens are parties (see Stony Point v Jacobsen, Index No. 4713/83; Phillips v Jacobsen, Index No. 1755/84). Brown, J.P., Niehoff, Rubin and Eiber, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Phillips v. Town of Stony Point

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 26, 1984
104 A.D.2d 1033 (N.Y. App. Div. 1984)
Case details for

Phillips v. Town of Stony Point

Case Details

Full title:MARVIN PHILLIPS et al., Respondents, v. TOWN OF STONY POINT, Defendant…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Oct 26, 1984

Citations

104 A.D.2d 1033 (N.Y. App. Div. 1984)

Citing Cases

McKinney v. Commissioner

Plaintiffs argue that WSMC is not a necessary party to the action because WSMC chose not to intervene ( see…

In Matter of Pirrotti v. Town of Greenburgh

The petitioner argues that the proposed intervenors should instead bring a proceeding pursuant to RPAPL…