Ignorance of Adverse Possessors’ Use of the Land Is Not a Defense/Criteria Explained

In affirming that defendants had demonstrated they met the criteria for adverse possession, the court noted that plaintiff’s claim that she did not know the defendants were occupying the land and did not know where the boundary was did not constitute a defense to adverse possession:

“To establish a claim of adverse possession, the occupation of the property must be (1) hostile and under a claim of right (i.e., a reasonable basis for the belief that the subject property belongs to a particular party), (2) actual, (3) open and notorious, (4) exclusive, and (5) continuous for the statutory period (at least 10 years)” … . “In addition, where, as here, the claim of right is not founded upon a written instrument, the party asserting title by adverse possession must establish that the land was usually cultivated or improved’ or protected by a substantial inclosure’ ” … . “The type of cultivation or improvement sufficient under the statute will vary with the character, condition, location and potential uses for the property . . . and need only be consistent with the nature of the property so as to indicate exclusive ownership” … . Reardon v Broadwell, 2014 NY Slip Op 06718, 4th Dept 10-3-14