You are here: / / Plaintiff’s Alleging a Deed Executed Within the Ten-Year Statute of Limitations f...

Plaintiff’s Alleging a Deed Executed Within the Ten-Year Statute of Limitations for Adverse Possession Is Void Creates a Presumption of Possession by the Plaintiff Within the Ten-Year Period

The Second Department determined that plaintiff’s action to quiet title was not time-barred. Plaintiff alleged decedent’s signature on a deed was forged. By alleging the 1998 deed was void, plaintiff is presumed to have had possession of the premises within the statutory 10-year statute of limitations for adverse possession:

CPLR 212(a) provides that “[a]n action to recover real property or its possession cannot be commenced unless the plaintiff, or his predecessor in interest, was seized or possessed of the premises within ten years before the commencement of the action” (CPLR 212[a]…). However, CPLR 212(a) must be read together with RPAPL 311, which provides that “the person who establishes a legal title to the premises is presumed to have been possessed thereof within the time required by law; and the occupation of the premises by another person is deemed to have been under and in subordination to the legal title unless the premises have been held and possessed adversely to the legal title for ten years before the commencement of the action” (RPAPL 311 [emphasis added]…)..Here, the plaintiff sufficiently alleged possession of the subject premises within 10 years of commencing this action by asserting that the 1998 deed …, as well as each subsequent deed in the chain of title, was void. Under these circumstances, “the plaintiff, as the alleged legal title holder of the premises, is presumed to have possession of the premises within the time required” … . Elam v Altered Ego Realty Holding Corp, 2014 NY Slip Op 01292, 2nd Dept 2-26-14

 

You might also like
IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, PLAINTIFF’S 50-H EXAMINATION TESTIMONY DIRECTLY CONTRADICTED HIS AFFIDAVIT OPPOSING THE CITY’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION; THE “FEIGNED ISSUE OF FACT” DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT (SECOND DEPT). ​
DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE RAISED BRICK WAS A TRIVIAL DEFECT OR AN OPEN AND OBVIOUS DEFECT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED 2ND DEPT.
Proof Submitted in Reply Papers Not Considered
DEFENSE COUNSEL’S REQUEST FOR AN ADJOURNMENT OF THE SORA RISK-LEVEL PROCEEDING TO ALLOW REVIEW OF DOCUMENTS WHICH MAY BE RELEVANT TO A DOWNWARD DEPARTURE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).
Question of Fact Whether Withdrawal Was Authorized, Despite Absence of Signature
BECAUSE THE B MISDEMEANOR CARRIES DEPORTATION AS A POTENTIAL PENALTY, DEFENDANT IS ENTITLED TO A JURY TRIAL (SECOND DEPT).
MIDDLE DRIVER WAS PUSHED INTO PLAINTIFF’S CAR BY THE DRIVER BEHIND, MIDDLE DRIVER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION TO DISMISS DID NOT MEET THE CRITERIA REQUIRED BY CPLR 3211(a)(1) (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

Operating a Scaffold for the Benefit of an Enumerated Activity Done by Others... Court Has Common-Law “Interest of Justice” Authority to Modify Its Own Order...