You are here: / / Good, Fact-Based Analysis of the Requirements for Adverse Possession

Good, Fact-Based Analysis of the Requirements for Adverse Possession

Reversing Supreme Court’s grant of summary judgment to the plaintiffs on their adverse-possession claim, the Third Department determined a question of fact had been raised about whether plaintiffs’ use of the disputed land was with the defendants’ permission, which would defeat the “hostility” element of adverse possession.  The Third Department offered a detailed fact-based analysis which provides an excellent lesson on the law of adverse possession. The court noted, on the issue of exclusivity, the claim that defendants occasionally maintained the disputed property during the plaintiffs’ absence was not enough to raise a question of fact about the plaintiffs’ exclusive use of the property:

To establish their claim for adverse possession, plaintiffs are required to prove by clear and convincing evidence that their possession of the disputed property “[was] hostile and under a claim of right, actual, open and notorious, exclusive and continuous for the statutory period of 10 years” … . Additionally, where, as here, the adverse possession claim is not based upon a written instrument, the party asserting the claim “must establish that the land was ‘usually cultivated or improved’ or ‘protected by a substantial inclosure'” … .

As for [defendant’s] alleged maintenance of the disputed property during plaintiffs’ absences, “exclusivity is not defeated even if the true owner makes occasional forays onto the property . . .. [A]ll that is required is possession consistent with the nature of the property so as to indicate exclusive ownership” (1-5 Warren’s Weed, New York Real Property § 5.33 [2015]). In our view, plaintiffs’ exclusive, regular use and maintenance of the disputed property during their periods of occupation were consistent with the seasonal nature of their property. The occasional maintenance that defendants allegedly performed or directed during plaintiffs’ absences — which was performed without plaintiffs’ knowledge and did not interfere in any way with plaintiffs’ possession or use of the disputed property — was insufficient to meet defendants’ prima facie burden to establish that plaintiffs’ use of the property was not exclusive … . Bergmann v Spallane, 2015 NY Slip Op 04713, 3rd Dept 6-4-15

 

You might also like
Criteria for Presentation of Exculpatory Evidence to the Grand Jury Explained (Not Met Here)
PETITIONER POLICE OFFICER WAS AWARE OF THE DEFECT IN THE FLOOR WHICH CAUSED HIS CHAIR TO START TO TIP OVER BACKWARDS WHEN THE WHEELS CAUGHT IN THE DEFECT; THEREFORE THE INCIDENT WAS NOT UNEXPECTED AND PETITIONER WAS NOT ENTITLED TO ACCIDENTAL DISABILITY RETIREMENT BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT).
THE DE BOUR STREET STOP REQUIREMENTS, NOT THE TRAFFIC STOP REQUIREMENTS, APPLY TO THE APPROACH OF A PERSON IN A STATIONARY CAR WITH THE ENGINE RUNNING (THIRD DEPT).
VILLAGE BOARD DID NOT TAKE THE ‘HARD LOOK’ REQUIRED BY THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT (SEQRA), REVIEW WAS UNDERTAKEN TO FACILITATE THE CONDEMNATION OF LAND FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A PARKING GARAGE, VILLAGE DID NOT ADEQUATELY CONSIDER ADVERSE TRAFFIC IMPLICATIONS (THIRD DEPT).
Defendant’s Snow Removal Practices May Have Caused Icy Condition in Parking Lot
LOCAL LAW CREATING A SENIOR LIVING DISTRICT (SLD) WAS INVALID BECAUSE APPROVAL BY A SUPERMAJORITY OF THE TOWN BOARD WAS REQUIRED; BECAUSE THE COMPLAINT SOUGHT A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT WAS NOT PROPER, SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE RULED ON THE DECLARATORY JUDGMENT (THIRD DEPT).
Question of Fact Whether Tavern Served Visibly Intoxicated Defendant
DEFENDANT WAS NOT FULLY INFORMED OF THE RIGHTS HE WAS GIVING UP BY PLEADING GUILTY, CONVICTION REVERSED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (THIRD 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

Doctor Did Not Have a Duty to Disclose an Email from a Non-Physician Representative... Allegations Supported the Existence of an “Implied Physician-Patient Relationship”...