You are here: / / Question of Fact Whether Encroaching Hedge Was De Minimus Encroachment...
,

Question of Fact Whether Encroaching Hedge Was De Minimus Encroachment Re: Adverse Possession

The Second Department determined there was a question of fact about whether a hedge which encroached eight feet into plaintiff’s right of way was a “de minimus” encroachment within the meaning of the Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL) (re: adverse possession):

RPAPL 543(1), which was enacted in 2008, provides: “Notwithstanding any other provision of this article, the existence of de [minimis] non-structural encroachments including, but not limited to, fences, hedges, shrubbery, plantings, sheds and non-structural walls, shall be deemed to be permissive and non-adverse.” The plaintiff contends that pursuant to RPAPL 543(1), the existence of all encroaching hedges and shrubbery, no matter how large, shall be deemed permissive and non-adverse. Under the plaintiff’s interpretation of the statute, the list of examples contained in RPAPL 543(1) are examples of “de [minimis] non-structural encroachments.” We reject this interpretation. The more reasonable interpretation of RPAPL 543(1) is that the list contains examples of “non-structural encroachments” which could still be adverse if they are not de minimis. This reading gives effect to the words “de [minimis],” while the plaintiff’s interpretation would render those words superfluous. “It is a cardinal principle to be observed in construing legislation that . . . whenever practicable, effect must be given to all the language employed. Our duty is to presume that each clause . . . has a purpose” … . Wright v Sokoloff, 2013 NY Slip Op 06856, 2nd Dept 10-23-13

 

You might also like
PLEADING REQUIREMENTS FOR A BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY CAUSE OF ACTION WERE NOT MET; ATTORNEY REPRESENTING A CORPORATION DOES NOT OWE A FIDUCIARY DUTY TO SHAREHOLDERS OR EMPLOYEES (SECOND DEPT).
PETITION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM AGAINST THE CITY OF NEW YORK SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED IN THIS LEAD-PAINT EXPOSURE CASE; THE PLAINTIFF WAS EXPOSED TO LEAD IN AN APARTMENT OWNED BY THE NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY (NYCHA), AN ENTITY SEPARATE FROM THE CITY; THEREFORE THE UNDERLYING CLAIM WAS PATENTLY MERITLESS (SECOND DEPT).
FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE GRANTED AN ADJOURNMENT IN CONTEMPLATION OF DISMISSAL AS THE LEAST RESTRICTIVE ALTERNATIVE, RATHER THAN IMPOSING A PERIOD OF PROBATION; PETITION DISMISSED.
PHYSICIAN’S DUTY EXTENDS ONLY TO THE TASK ASSIGNED, HERE THE INTERPRETATION OF MRI FILM.
EMAIL CALLING INTO QUESTION THE LEGITIMACY OF PLAINTIFF’S PHD PROTECTED BY QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE (SECOND DEPT).
State Pollutant Discharge Permit Properly Approved by DEP
CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST PROPERLY IMPOSED UPON PROPERTY PURCHASED AND IMPROVED WITH MARITAL FUNDS BUT TITLED TO ANOTHER.
FRENCH COMPANY WHICH MANUFACTURED ELEVATOR BRAKES FOR SALE TO OTHER MANUFACTURERS DID NOT HAVE SUFFICIENT CONTACTS WITH NEW YORK TO CONFER JURISDICTION IN THIS ELEVATOR MALFUNCTION CASE (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

Note and Mortgage Void as Usurious Question of Fact About Whether Rider Assumed Risk of Being Kicked by Horse—Allegations...