Opinion
June 3, 1996
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Weiner, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof awarding title to the triangular strip of property to the defendants, and substituting therefor a judgment declaring that the plaintiffs have title to the triangular strip of property; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed, with costs to the plaintiffs.
The plaintiffs and the defendants, owners of adjoining parcels of property, each claimed, inter alia, title to a triangular strip of property over which the plaintiffs maintained a driveway to their home. The jury determined, inter alia, that the strip was owned by the defendants.
In an action to determine a boundary line, a plaintiff must locate the boundary with a fair degree of certainty ( see, 1 Warren's Weed, New York Real Property, Boundaries, § 4.05 [1]; cf., Sarfaty v. Evangelist, 142 A.D.2d 995). Here, the plaintiffs presented unrebutted expert testimony and documentary evidence that the triangular strip was within the boundary line of their property. We find that there was no valid line of reasoning or permissible inferences which could have led a rational jury to conclude that the triangular strip was within the property line of the defendants. The only conclusion to be drawn from the evidence is that the triangular strip was within the property line of the plaintiffs ( see, Cohen v. Hallmark Cards, 45 N.Y.2d 493, 499; Siegel, N.Y. Prac § 405, at 613-614 [2d ed]).
We note that the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in granting the plaintiffs' application for leave to amend their pleadings to add a cause of action for title to the triangular strip ( see, CPLR 3025 [b]).
The plaintiffs were not entitled to a charge on punitive damages because they failed to demonstrate that the defendants' conduct was "'malicious, wanton, reckless, or in willful disregard for another's rights'" ( Prozeralik v. Capital Cities Communications, 82 N.Y.2d 466, 479-480).
In light of our determination, we need not reach the plaintiffs' contention alleging a prescriptive easement.
We note that since this is a declaratory judgment action, the Supreme Court should have directed the entry of a declaration in favor of the plaintiffs ( see, Lanza v. Wagner, 11 N.Y.2d 317, 334, appeal dismissed 371 U.S. 74, cert denied 371 U.S. 901). Miller, J.P., Ritter, Krausman and McGinity, JJ., concur.