bona fides claim in New York

1959Co. v. Mapes, 216 N. Y. 362, 370-371 ).

1952Co. v. Mapes ( 216 N. Y. 362, 370-371 ), “ the bona fides of the claim of the occupant is not essential and it will not excuse the negligence of the owner in forbearing to bring his action until after the time in the Statute of Limitations shall have run against him to show that the defendant knew all along that he was in the wrong.

2014The circumstances and reasonableness of landlord’s delay in instituting this nonpayment proceeding must be more fully explored at trial before the bona fides of this defense are determined (see City of New York v Betancourt, 79 Misc 2d 907 [1974]).

2008Co., 135 AD2d 486 [2d Dept 1987]; Agapov v Agapov, NYLJ, Aug. 29, 2000, at 23.) With respect to documents, he must provide a privilege log that will initially allow the bona fides of his privilege claim to be evaluated.

1991(See, Teitelbaum Holdings v Gold, 48 NY2d 51, 56 ; Consolidated Rail Corp. v Industrial Scrap Processing Corp., 97 AD2d 532 .) Accordingly, the order and judgment appealed from are reversed, and the matter remanded for this purpose.

1991(See, Teitelbaum Holdings v Gold, 48 NY2d 51, 56 ; Consolidated Rail Corp. v Industrial Scrap Processing Corp., 97 AD2d 532 .) Accordingly, the order and judgment appealed from are reversed, and the matter remanded for this purpose.

1967Co., 24 A D 2d 623, 624; Matter of Littlejohn & Co. [Fah Sang Co.], 20 A D 2d 697, affd. 15 N Y 2d 530; Matter of Lehman v. Ostrovsky, 264 N. Y. 130 .) While under the arbitration statute the court may not determine the bona fides of a claim, or even its tenability, it does not, nor in my opinion was it intended to, have the scope of prohibiting an initial inquiry as to whether or not the arbitration clause, as a matter of law, covers the proffered dispute.

1950B is charged with notice by ,the visible physical fact alone.” (Smith v. Egan, 225 App. Div. 586 -587.) The possessions of the defendants now under discussion are held to be adverse and under claim of right even though the defendants believed they were upon open public lands belonging to no private person. “ A naked possession of land unaccompanied by a claim of right never constitutes a bar to the true owner, but in the absence of a statutory requirement the bona fides of the claim of the occupant is not essential and it will not excuse the negligence of the owner in forbearing to bring his a

1915(Humbert v. Rector, etc., of Trinity Church, 21 Wend. 587 .) The court further charged the jury: “ Gentlemen, there is evidence here that for a period of thirty or forty years before this action was commenced the different occupants of this property (defendant’s property) cut the hay from a part of this disputed tract once a year.