You are here: / / Ten Year Adverse Possession Period Began After Ten Year Permissive Use...

Ten Year Adverse Possession Period Began After Ten Year Permissive Use Period Expired

The Second Department determined that plaintiffs acquired property by adverse possession, even though the initial use of the property was by permission. The permission ceased by statute after ten years, and another ten years of hostile use passed:

A party seeking to obtain title by adverse possession must prove, by clear and convincing evidence, the following common-law requirements of adverse possession: that the possession was (1) hostile and under claim of right, (2) actual, (3) open and notorious, (4) exclusive, and (5) continuous for the statutory period of 10 years … . Here, only the first element is in dispute. According to the defendants, the plaintiffs’ use of the properties was by permission. * * *

…[A] landlord/tenant relationship existed between the parties and their predecessors and, therefore, RPAPL 531 applies. Since no written lease existed and the admissible evidence established that neither the plaintiffs nor their predecessor paid rent for their use of the properties since July 21, 1981, any permission that may have been granted to the plaintiffs or their predecessor to use the properties effectively ceased after 10 years (see RPAPL 531…). Thus, by operation of RPAPL 531, the plaintiffs’ adverse possession of the properties commenced on July 21, 1991. Under the circumstances of this case, we agree with the Supreme Court that the plaintiffs established their hostile use of the properties for a period of 10 years after the permissive period expired …, and that the plaintiffs were, therefore, entitled to a judgment declaring them to be the owners in fee simple absolute of the subject properties. Auto Gobbler Parts, Inc v Serpico, 2013 NY Slip Op 05977, 2nd Dept, 9-25-13

 

You might also like
THE EXPERTS WHO TESTIFIED THE SEIZED SUBSTANCES CONTAINED HEROIN OR COCAINE RELIED ON COMPARISONS WITH STANDARD SAMPLES IN THEIR LABS BUT NO EVIDENCE WAS OFFERED TO DEMONSTRATE THE ACCURACY OF THE SAMPLES; THEREFORE THE EXPERTS’ OPINIONS RELIED ON EVIDENCE NOT IN THE RECORD; CONVICTIONS REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).
COUNTY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PLAINTIFF’S SUICIDE ATTEMPT WAS NOT FORESEEABLE, PLAINTIFF WAS IN THE COUNTY JAIL AT THE TIME, SHE JUMPED OUT OF A SECOND STORY WINDOW, COUNTY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANTS DID NOT CONTROL THE MANNER OF PLAINTIFF’S WORK AND PLAINTIFF WAS ENGAGED IN ROUTINE MAINTENANCE, NOT CONSTRUCTION. LABOR LAW 200 AND 240(1) CAUSES OF ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED.
Attempted Criminal Possession of a Weapon Third Degree Is Not a Violent Felony When It is the Top Count of an Indictment—It is a Violent Felony Only If It Is a “Lesser Included” Offense
LABOR LAW 200 CAUSE OF ACTION, PREMISED ON DEFENDANT’S AUTHORITY TO SUPERVISE OR CONTROL THE PERFORMANCE OF PLAINTIFF’S WORK, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 241 (6) CAUSES OF ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
THE RELEASE WAS VALID EVEN THOUGH PLAINTIFF DID NOT UNDERSTAND ENGLISH; CPLR 2101, WHICH REQUIRES DOCUMENTS IN A FOREIGN LANGUAGE WHICH ARE FILED OR SERVED BE ACCOMPANIED BY AN ENGLISH TRANSLATION, DOES NOT APPLY BECAUSE THE RELEASE WAS IN ENGLISH (SECOND DEPT).
POSSIBILITY OF DEPORTATION NOT MENTIONED AT TIME OF GUILTY PLEA, MATTER REMITTED.
ALTHOUGH THE BACKHOE WHICH COLLIDED WITH PLAINTIFF’S VEHICLE HAD BEEN USED FOR ROADWORK THAT DAY, AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT THE BACKHOE WAS BEING USED TO TRANSPORT GRAVEL TO THE WORK SITE; THE SECOND DEPARTMENT DETERMINED THE BACKHOE WAS NOT “ACTIVELY ENGAGED” IN ROADWORK AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT AND, THEREFORE, THE HIGHER “RECKLESS DISREGARD” STANDARD FOR LIABILITY IN THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW DID NOT APPLY (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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

In Spite of Settlement of Underlying Action, the Legal Malpractice Case Alleging... Question of Fact Whether Initial Broker Entitled to Commission