Property / Rental Legal Briefs

Lbs Homework Sheet

Quinain v. Doe, 516140 App. Div., 3rd Dept (2013)

Who is/are the plaintiff(s) (i.e. consumer, company, employee, government) and what type of legal relief is/are the plaintiff(s) seeking?

The plaintiff are a group of people who developed a close relationship with George Rossi and took possession of his parcel of land after his death.

What legal question must the court decide, and what is the common law rule, constitutional provision or statute that the question will turn on?

The legal question to be answered is whether the plaintiffs legitimately took possession of the parcel of land subsequent to Rossi's death or if the distant family members of Rossi actually are entitled to possession of the land.

What is the court's reasoning? (Might include reliance on precedent, statutory interpretation and legislative history & societal considerations)

The decision had a couple of layers. First, both George Rossi himself and his brother that died before him (Peter) died intestate, which means they had no last will and testaments. Second, while George Rossi died last, he was not the legal owner of the property as he had bestowed or sold it to his late brother before Peter died. As such, George was not the legal owner of the property at the time of his death as it never passed back to George. The Defendants technically had a claim at the time of Peter's death but no legal claim was filed and the Plaintiffs took adverse possession.

What is the precedent or holding established by the court's ruling that will be followed in subsequent similar cases? Not just what the court does -- such as reverses the decision of the court below or awards damages to plaintiff -- but what is the proposition for which another party might cite the case?

There were several cases cited within his one including Fry v. Village of Tarrytown and Page v. Marusich, among others. People that cite this case would point to who claims a property, with what timing and what the legal heirs do while all that is going on. Had the descendants of Rossi acted before adverse possession took place, they might have had a claim as family bloodlines or marriage would be the typical ways by which property passed. However, since the Plaintiffs had already assumed care, custody and control of the land, that never came to pass.

Poyck v. Bryant, 2006 NY Slip Op 26343, 13 Misc. 3d 699 (2006) (9/24)

Who is/are the plaintiff(s) (i.e. consumer, company, employee, government) and what type of legal relief is/are the plaintiff(s) seeking?

The plaintiff, who had apparently stayed in their unit for three years with no major incident, claimed constructive eviction after a neighbor in an adjoining unit moved in next door and then would smoke in the shared hallway. The landlord sued for unpaid rent due to breaking the lease without paying to break it or paying it in full.

What legal question must the court decide, and what is the common law rule, constitutional provision or statute that the question will turn on?

The legal question to be answered is whether the second-hand smoke situation constituted constructive eviction or if the landlord was exempted from responsibility for the second-hand smoke because it was a third party.

What is the court's reasoning? (Might include reliance on precedent, statutory interpretation and legislative history & societal considerations)

The reasoning of the decision was that since the smoking in question was happening in a common area and not in the unit itself and since the landlord made no effort to stop the second-hand smoke from happening due to the violation of smoking in the hall rather than in the unit or outside, the landlord was held responsible for constructive eviction and the jilted tenant won their case.