SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, SECOND DEPARTMENT
June 24, 1968
RUTH M. KENT, RESPONDENT,
ARTHUR L. WINN, JR., ET AL., APPELLANTS
Brennan, Acting P. J., Rabin, Benjamin, Munder and Martuscello, JJ., concur.
In our opinion, therefore, the deed was a nullity. Furthermore, a sale by the State of certain parcels of land by letters patent to respondent's husband did not convey the subject premises, as the maps which describe the area conveyed indicate that there was no transfer of the bed of First Street. Finally, as the party seeking relief, it was incumbent on respondent to sustain her action on the strength of her own title(Beers v. Hotchkiss, 256 N. Y. 41, 45). Since she has not done so, it is our opinion that the trial court erred in granting her the relief requested.
© 1998 VersusLaw Inc.