You are here: / / Ownership Acquired by Adverse Possession Demonstrated

Ownership Acquired by Adverse Possession Demonstrated

The Second Department reversed Supreme Court and determined plaintiffs had proved ownership of a strip of land by adverse possession:

…[W]e conclude that the plaintiffs demonstrated ownership to the subject strip through adverse possession. ” A party seeking to obtain title by adverse possession must prove by clear and convincing evidence . . . that (1) the possession was hostile and under claim of right; (2) it was actual; (3) it was open and notorious; (4) it was exclusive; and (5) it was continuous for the statutory period of 10 years'” … . Additionally, since the adverse possession claim is not founded upon a written instrument, the plaintiffs must establish, in accordance with the law in effect at the time this action was commenced, that the disputed property was either “usually cultivated or improved” or “protected by a substantial inclosure” (RPAPL former 522…).

Here, the plaintiffs demonstrated that, by building and maintaining a wall along the subject strip, which was styled to match their house and attached to a gate attached to their house, they continually possessed the subject strip, for more than 10 years, in a manner that was open and notorious, exclusive, and inimical to the rights of the [defendants’] predecessor… . Marone v Kally, 2013 NY Slip Op 05882, 2nd Dept 9-18-13

 

You might also like
PLAINTIFF SUBMITTED INSUFFICIENT PROOF THAT THE NOTICE REQUIRED BY RPAPL 1304 AND THE MORTGAGE WAS PROVIDED TO DEFENDANTS; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
ACCIDENT DIAGRAM IN POLICE REPORT WAS NOT BASED ON OFFICER’S FIRST-HAND KNOWLEDGE; REPORT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED IN EVIDENCE; NEW TRIAL ORDERED.
HERE THE DEFENDANT SELF-STORAGE FACILITY DID NOT NOTIFY PLAINTIFF OF THE CHANGED SALE-DATE AND DISPOSED OF PLAINTIFF’S PROPERTY TO A THIRD PARTY AT THE TIME OF THE SALE; PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT BASED ON DEFENDANT’S VIOLATION OF THE NOTICE PROVISIONS OF THE LIEN LAW AND DEFENDANT’S SUBSEQUENT CONVERSION OF THE PROPERTY (SECOND DEPT).
Owners/Occupiers of a Single Family Residence Not Responsible for Maintaining Abutting Sidewalk Pursuant to the NYC Administrative Code
Interest Pursuant to CPLR 5002 and 5003 Is a Matter of Right Not Dependent Upon the Court’s Discretion or a Demand
Court’s Review Powers Re: a Planning Board’s Denial of a Subdivision Application Explained
Election of Remedies Provision in Labor Law 740 Precluded Retaliation Action Based Upon an Alleged Violation of NYC Administrative Code
THE CONDITIONAL DIRECTIVE THAT FATHER BE AWARDED SOLE CUSTODY IF MOTHER DID NOT RETURN FROM SWEDEN WITH THE CHILD IS NOT ENFORCEABLE; A CHANGE IN CUSTODY MUST BE BASED ON THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD AND SHOULD NOT BE USED TO PUNISH A PARENT (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Planning Board Should Not Have Added Conditions for Approval of Final Plat... Termination of Participation in Affordable Housing Program Is Not a Taxable...