You are here: / / Requirements of Adverse Possession by “Tacking” Explained (Not...

Requirements of Adverse Possession by “Tacking” Explained (Not Met Here)

In affirming the grant of defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint claiming adverse possession of a strip of land, the Second Department explained the requirements for adverse possession by “tacking” the possession of prior owners:

A party claiming adverse possession may establish possession for the statutory period by “tacking” the time that the party possessed the property onto the time that the party’s predecessor adversely possessed the property … . Tacking is permitted where there is an “unbroken chain of privity between the adverse possessors” … . For tacking to apply, a party must show that the party’s predecessor “intended to and actually turned over possession of the undescribed part with the portion of the land included in the deed” … . In order to succeed on a claim of adverse possession, a party must provide clear and convincing evidence that the possession was “hostile and under a claim of right”; (2) actual; (3) open and notorious; (4) exclusive; and (5) “continuous for the statutory period of 10 years” … . The party must also show that the disputed property was “usually cultivated or improved” or “protected by a substantial inclosure” (RPAPL former § 522 …). Munroe v Cheyenne Realty, LLC, 2015 NY Slip Op 06902, 2nd Dept 9-23-15

 

You might also like
PLAINTIFF RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER A CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST ON REAL PROPERTY HAD BEEN CREATED, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
SENDING THE 90-DAY FORECLOSURE NOTICE TO TWO BORROWERS IN THE SAME ENVELOPE DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304, WHICH IS A CONDITION PRECEDENT TO A FORECLOSURE ACTION; BECAUSE THE NOTICE WAS NOT SENT TO EACH BORROWER IN A SEPARATE ENVELOPE THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
City Provided Adequate Supervision at Beach—Drowning Action Dismissed
HERE PLAINTIFF HAD THE RIGHT-OF-WAY ENTERING AN INTERSECTION AND DEFENDANT FAILED TO YIELD; PLAINTIFFS WERE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LIABILITY AND DISMISSAL OF DEFENDANTS’ COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE SPECIFIC CRIME, I.E., THE SHOOTING OF PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT IN DEFENDANTS’ BUILDING, MAY NOT HAVE BEEN FORESEEABLE, THE RELEVANT QUESTION IS WHETHER THE DOOR SECURITY WAS DEFICIENT AND THEREFORE WAS A CONCURRENT FACTOR IN THE SHOOTING (SECOND DEPT).
THE ZONING BOARD’S DENIAL OF A STREET FRONTAGE VARIANCE WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY SPECIFIC FACTUAL FINDINGS MAKING COURT-REVIEW IMPOSSIBLE; MATTER REMITTED TO THE BOARD (SECOND DEPT).
Court May Not Deny a Dispositive Motion on a Ground Not Raised by the Parties/Assumption of Risk Precluded Suit Based Upon Falling Off an Exercise Ball
ALTHOUGH DEFENDANTS, RESIDENTS OF ISRAEL, HAD TIMELY NOTICE OF A NEW YORK LAWSUIT, THE PROCESS SERVER’S AFFIDAVIT INDICATES DUE DILIGENCE IN A FAILED ATTEMPT TO SERVE DEFENDANTS AT A NEW YORK ADDRESS, BECAUSE DEFENDANTS WERE NEVER SERVED, THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT IS A NULLITY (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

Principal’s Failure to Follow the Performance-Rating Procedures Required... Criteria for Arbitrability of Dispute Involving Public Employees Succinctly...