Appeal from a judgment of the County Court, Otsego County, determining, after a trial, that as a matter of law the parties and their predecessors had acquiesced in the existing fences and boundary lines, as the boundary line between their respective properties rather than a recent survey which differed little from the pre-existing fences and boundary lines between these two large farms, that respondent was accordingly the owner in fee of the disputed property and that appellant had, therefore, wrongfully changed the boundary line. On the instant record we concur in the trial court's determination that, as a matter of law, there was such a long standing acquiescence in the existing fences and boundary lines as the dividing boundary between the two farms that notwithstanding any survey determination this became the true boundary line ( Baldwin v. Brown, 16 N.Y. 359; Fisher v. MacVean, 25 A.D.2d 575; Van Dusen v. Lomonaco, 24 Misc.2d 878; see 6 N.Y. Jur., Boundaries, §§ 79-82). Judgment affirmed, with costs. Reynolds, J.P., Staley, Jr., Greenblott, Cooke and Sweeney, JJ., concur.