By decision dated September 19, 2006, the Appellate Division Second Department reversed a decision of the Supreme Court and determined that HBA partner John A, Harras, acting as referee, had correctly concluded that a 1922 facially ambiguous deed had transferred a numbered unimproved lot in the configuration shown on an amended subdivision map, and rejected defendants claim that deed related to a larger lot bearing the same lot number as shown on an earlier filed map. In addition to the language of the deed and fact that the deed was recorded after the filling of the amended map, the evidence demonstrated the defendant and his predecessors had not exercised control of the additional lot area, thus undermining the defendants proposed interpretation of the deed in dispute.
Success Stories