You are here: / / Pre-2008 Criteria for Adverse Possession Explained

Pre-2008 Criteria for Adverse Possession Explained

Applying the law of adverse possession as it was in 2002 (the legislature changed the law in 2008), the Second Department determined plaintiffs had demonstrated they acquired land enclosed by a fence by adverse possession:

In 2008, the Legislature enacted changes to the adverse possession statutes … . Here, however, since title to the disputed property allegedly vested in the plaintiffs by adverse possession in 2002 at the latest, the law in effect prior to the amendments is applicable … . Accordingly, the plaintiffs were required to demonstrate that their possession was “(1) 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” … . Additionally, under the former version of RPAPL 522 that was in effect at the relevant time, the plaintiffs were required to establish that the disputed area was either “usually cultivated or improved” or “protected by a substantial inclosure” … . “Since adverse possession is disfavored as a means of gaining title to land, all elements of an adverse possession claim must be proved by clear and convincing evidence” … .

Here, the plaintiffs demonstrated their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law declaring that they were the owners of the disputed property by adverse possession. They submitted evidence that the disputed property had been enclosed by fencing since at least 1992, and that both the plaintiffs and their predecessor in interest cultivated and maintained the lawn on their side of the fence until 2010, while the property on the defendant’s side of the fence was wooded and remained uncultivated. Warren v Carreras, 2015 NY Slip Op 07967, 2nd Dept 11-4-15

 

You might also like
Electronic Documents Constitute “Tangible Personal Property” and Can Therefore Be the Subject of a Conversion Cause of Action
EVIDENCE OF KNOWING POSSESSION OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE WAS SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT AN INDICTMENT, SUPREME COURT REVERSED.
STATE’S EXPERTS SHOULD NOT HAVE RELIED ON HEARSAY EVIDENCE OF CONVICTIONS WHICH WERE VACATED BASED UPON DNA EVIDENCE, NEW MENTAL ABNORMALITY TRIAL ORDERED, SEALED CRIMINAL RECORDS PROPERLY CONSIDERED, FAILURE HOLD PROBABLE CAUSE HEARING AND TRIAL WITHIN STATUTORY TIME FRAMES DID NOT VIOLATE DUE PROCESS (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANTS DEMONSTRATED THEY HAD NO NOTICE OF THE FORMATION OF ICE IN THE PARKING LOT WHERE PLAINTIFF FELL, BECAUSE PLAINTIFF DID NOT ALLEGE THE ICE WAS A RECURRING CONDITION DEFENDANTS DID NOT NEED TO PRESENT PROOF THAT IT WAS NOT A RECURRING CONDITION, DEFENDANTS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).
POLICE OFFICER HAD AN OBJECTIVE, CREDIBLE REASON FOR APPROACHING DEFENDANT IN HER CAR, EVIDENCE OF DWI SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED.
REPAIR OF AN AIR CONDITIONER WAS NOT A PROTECTED ACTIVITY UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1) OR 246(1), LADDER WAS NOT DEFECTIVE AND DEFENDANT DID NOT CONTROL PLAINTIFF’S WORK, THEREFORE NO LIABILITY UNDER LABOR LAW 200(1) AS WELL.
IN A MED MAL ACTION, AN EXPERT’S AFFIRMATION WHICH IS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE RECORD WILL BE DEEMED “CONCLUSORY” AND WILL NOT SUPPORT SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).
CRITERIA FOR ADVERSE POSSESSION AND OUSTER AGAINST A COTENANT NOT MET (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

Work for Which Claimant Was Not Paid Did Not Disqualify Her from Unemployment... Due Diligence Requirements for Nail and Mail Service Do Not Apply Under the...