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
FAMILY COURT PROPERLY PROHIBITED FATHER FROM POSTING BLOGS DISPARAGING THE CHILD’S RELATIVES ON SOCIAL MEDIA, BUT THE RESTRICTIONS WERE TOO BROAD IN THAT THEY WENT BEYOND THE NEEDS OF THE CASE (SECOND DEPT).
THE RIGHT TO SEEK REMOVAL OF A CLOUD ON TITLE IS NEVER BARRED BY A STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (SECOND DEPT).
PETITIONER-REPORTER PREVAILED IN THE FOIL ACTION DESPITE THE AVAILABILITY OF SOME OF THE REQUESTED INFORMATION ON A PUBLIC WEBSITE; THEREFORE PETITIONER WAS ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY’S FEES AND LITIGATION COSTS (SECOND DEPT).
WAIVED DEFENSE CAN BE INTERPOSED IN AN ANSWER AMENDED BY LEAVE OF COURT.
DEFENDANT’S UNSUPPORTED ALLEGATION THAT PLAINTIFF STOPPED SUDDENLY WAS NOT ENOUGH TO DEFEAT PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS REAR END COLLISION CASE (SECOND DEPT).
THE 90-DAY DEMAND REQUIRED BY CPLR 3216 WAS NOT PROVIDED BY THE COURT’S ORDER; THE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN RESTORED TO THE ACTIVE CALENDAR WITHOUT A SHOWING OF MERIT; THE ISSUE, FIRST RAISED ON APPEAL, WAS PROPERLY CONSIDERED BY THE APPELLATE COURT (SECOND DEPT).
IN THE ABSENCE OF AN ORDER SUBSTITUTING THE BANKRUPTCY TRUSTEE FOR THE PLAINTIFF-DEBTOR, THE DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DENIED DEFENDANTS’ MOTION AND DIRECTED PLAINTIFF TO SEEK RELIEF FROM THE BANKRUPTCY COURT (SECOND DEPT).
Family Court Award of Sole Custody to Mother Reversed, Sole Custody Awarded to Father

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 © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Trustees Were Not Required by Town Law to Turn Over to the Town Board Trust... Slip and Fall on a Sloped, Grassy Area Not Actionable