You are here: / Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL)
,

ALTHOUGH THE CLADDING AND DRIP EDGE PLAINTIFF INSTALLED ON A PARTY WALL WAS A TRESPASS, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED ON THE DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR AN INJUNCTION DIRECTING THE REMOVAL OF THE CLADDING AND DRIP EDGE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined Supreme Court properly found that cladding and a drip edge plaintiff added to a party wall constituted a trespass. But Supreme Court should not have granted summary judgment on the issue whether defendant was entitled to an injunction directing plaintiffs to remove the cladding and drip edge:

​

… [T]he Supreme Court erred in granting summary judgment to the defendant on the issue of whether it was entitled to an injunction directing the plaintiffs to remove the cladding and drip edge. RPAPL 871(1) provides that an “action may be maintained by the owner of any legal estate in land for an injunction directing the removal of a structure encroaching on such land. Nothing herein contained shall be construed as limiting the power of the court in such an action to award damages in an appropriate case in lieu of an injunction or to render such other judgment as the facts may justify.” In order to obtain injunctive relief pursuant to RPAPL 871(1), a party is “required to demonstrate not only the existence of [an] encroachment, but that the benefit to be gained by compelling its removal would outweigh the harm that would result to [the encroaching party] from granting such relief” … . Here, the defendant failed to demonstrate the absence of any triable issues of fact concerning whether the balance of equities weighed in its favor … . Kimball v Bay Ridge United Methodist Church, 2018 NY Slip Op 00417, Second Dept 1-24-18

REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW (RPAPL) (TRESPASS, PARTY WALL, ALTHOUGH THE CLADDING AND DRIP EDGE PLAINTIFF INSTALLED ON A PARTY WALL WAS A TRESPASS, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED ON THE DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR AN INJUNCTION DIRECTING THE REMOVAL OF THE CLADDING AND DRIP EDGE (SECOND DEPT))/TRESPASS (PARTY WALL, ENCROACHMENT,  ALTHOUGH THE CLADDING AND DRIP EDGE PLAINTIFF INSTALLED ON A PARTY WALL WAS A TRESPASS, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED ON THE DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR AN INJUNCTION DIRECTING THE REMOVAL OF THE CLADDING AND DRIP EDGE (SECOND DEPT))/ENCROACHMENT (PARTY WALL, ALTHOUGH THE CLADDING AND DRIP EDGE PLAINTIFF INSTALLED ON A PARTY WALL WAS A TRESPASS, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED ON THE DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR AN INJUNCTION DIRECTING THE REMOVAL OF THE CLADDING AND DRIP EDGE (SECOND DEPT))/PARTY WALL (TRESPASS, ENCROACHMENT, ALTHOUGH THE CLADDING AND DRIP EDGE PLAINTIFF INSTALLED ON A PARTY WALL WAS A TRESPASS, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED ON THE DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR AN INJUNCTION DIRECTING THE REMOVAL OF THE CLADDING AND DRIP EDGE (SECOND DEPT))/ENCROACHMENT (PARTY WALL, ALTHOUGH THE CLADDING AND DRIP EDGE PLAINTIFF INSTALLED ON A PARTY WALL WAS A TRESPASS, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED ON THE DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR AN INJUNCTION DIRECTING THE REMOVAL OF THE CLADDING AND DRIP EDGE (SECOND DEPT))/INJUNCTION (REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW, PARTY WALL, ENCROACHMENT, TRESPASS, ALTHOUGH THE CLADDING AND DRIP EDGE PLAINTIFF INSTALLED ON A PARTY WALL WAS A TRESPASS, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED ON THE DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR AN INJUNCTION DIRECTING THE REMOVAL OF THE CLADDING AND DRIP EDGE (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

PLAINTIFF BANK SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT BY ADDING PARTIES AND TO EXTEND THE REACH OF THE ACTION TO THE ENTIRE PREMISES WHICH HAD BEEN ACQUIRED BY ADVERSE POSSESSION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff bank should have been allowed to amend its complaint in this foreclosure action to add parties and extend the reach of the action to the entire premises. There was evidence a party acquired title to the entire premises by adverse possession:

​

In the absence of prejudice or surprise to the opposing party, leave to amend a pleading should be freely granted “unless the proposed amendment is palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit” … . Moreover, pursuant to CPLR 1003, “[p]arties may be added at any stage of the action by leave of court” … .

Here, the plaintiff’s proposed cause of action was not “palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit” … . RPAPL 1501 provides that any person who “claims an estate or interest in real property’ may maintain an action against any other person . . . to compel the determination of any claim adverse to that of the plaintiff which the defendant makes, or which it appears from the public records, . . . the defendant might make'”… . Pursuant to RPAPL 1501(5), the interest held by any mortgagee of real property is an “interest in real property” as that phrase is used in article 15… . Thus, contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, the plaintiff, as mortgagee of the subject premises, asserted a cause of action to quiet title pursuant to RPAPL 1501 based on its claim that the mortgage encumbered the entire premises because the mortgagor acquired title to the entire premises by adverse possession … . Moreover, the plaintiff properly sought leave to amend the summons and complaint to add as defendants certain persons who might claim interests in the premises that are adverse to its own interest. Emigrant Sav. Bank v Walters, 2017 NY Slip Op 07976, Second Dept 11-15-17

 

CIVIL PROCEDURE (AMEND COMPLAINT, FORECLOSURE, PLAINTIFF BANK SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT BY ADDING PARTIES AND TO EXTEND THE REACH OF THE ACTION TO THE ENTIRE PREMISES WHICH HAD BEEN ACQUIRED BY ADVERSE POSSESSION (SECOND DEPT))/FORECLOSURE (CIVIL PROCEDURE, PLAINTIFF BANK SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT BY ADDING PARTIES AND TO EXTEND THE REACH OF THE ACTION TO THE ENTIRE PREMISES WHICH HAD BEEN ACQUIRED BY ADVERSE POSSESSION (SECOND DEPT))/REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW (FORECLOSURE, PLAINTIFF BANK SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT BY ADDING PARTIES AND TO EXTEND THE REACH OF THE ACTION TO THE ENTIRE PREMISES WHICH HAD BEEN ACQUIRED BY ADVERSE POSSESSION (SECOND DEPT))/ADVERSE POSSESSION (FORECLOSURE, CIVIL PROCEDURE, PLAINTIFF BANK SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT BY ADDING PARTIES AND TO EXTEND THE REACH OF THE ACTION TO THE ENTIRE PREMISES WHICH HAD BEEN ACQUIRED BY ADVERSE POSSESSION (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE NOT MET IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, BANK’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED 2ND DEPT.

The Second Department determined the bank did not meet the requirements for the business records exception to the hearsay rule, the bank’s motion for summary judgment should not have been granted:

In support of its motion, the plaintiff relied upon the affidavit of Meldin Rhodes, assistant secretary of Nationstar Mortgage, LLC, the current loan servicer. Rhodes averred that “servicing records” showed that the notice of default was mailed to the defendant on November 2, 2011, and the RPAPL 1304 notice was mailed on December 28, 2012. Attached to Rhodes’s affidavit were copies of the notice of default and the RPAPL 1304 notice purportedly sent by Bank of America, N.A. (hereinafter BOA), the prior loan servicer, to the defendant.

The plaintiff failed to demonstrate the admissibility of the records relied upon by Rhodes under the business records exception to the hearsay rule (see CPLR 4518). Rhodes, an employee of the current loan servicer, did not aver that he was personally familiar with the record keeping practices and procedures of BOA, the prior loan servicer. Thus, Rhodes failed to lay a proper foundation for admission of records concerning service of the required notices, and his assertions based on these records were inadmissible … .

Inasmuch as the plaintiff failed to tender sufficient evidence to demonstrate the absence of triable issues of fact as to its strict compliance with RPAPL 1304 and the notice requirement in the mortgage, its motion should have been denied, without regard to the sufficiency of the opposition papers  … . Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Carlin. 2017 NY Slip Op 05421, 2nd Dept 7-5-17

 

FORECLOSURE (EVIDENCE, BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE NOT MET IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, BANK’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED 2ND DEPT)/REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW (FORECLOSURE, EVIDENCE, BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE NOT MET IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, BANK’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED 2ND DEPT)/EVIDENCE (FORECLOSURE, BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE NOT MET IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, BANK’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED 2ND DEPT)/HEARSAY (FORECLOSURE,  BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE NOT MET IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, BANK’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED 2ND DEPT)/BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO HEARSAY RULE (FORECLOSURE,  BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE NOT MET IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, BANK’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED 2ND DEPT)

, ,

NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW NOT DEMONSTRATED, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THE FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

The Second Department determined the proof of notice requirements of Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL) 1304 was insufficient and the bank’s motion for summary judgment in this foreclosure proceeding should not have been granted:

​

Here, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate, prima facie, its strict compliance with RPAPL 1304 … . In support of its motion, the plaintiff submitted the affidavit of Monica I. Montalvo Rivas, its vice president of loan documentation, stating that she had “reviewed the 90 day pre-foreclosure notice sent to Borrower on October 31, 2013 to the last known address of Borrower, which is the residence that is [the] subject of the Mortgage, by first class mail and certified mail.” Annexed to Rivas’s affidavit was a copy of the notice, along with a copy of a “Certified Mail Receipt” containing the defendant’s address and a “Certified Mail Number.” The receipt contained no language indicating that it was issued by the United States Postal Service. “While mailing may be proved by documents meeting the requirements of the business exception records exception to the rule against hearsay,” here, Rivas did not aver that she was familiar with the plaintiff’s mailing practices and procedures, and therefore did not establish proof of a standard office practice and procedure designed to ensure that items are properly addressed and mailed … . In any event, the plaintiff failed to submit any proof substantiating Rivas’s assertion that the notice was mailed to the defendant by first class mail. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Trupia, 2017 NY Slip Op 03986, 2nd Dept 5-17-17

FORECLOSURE (NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW NOT DEMONSTRATED, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THE FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW (FORECLOSURE, NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW NOT DEMONSTRATED, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THE FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/EVIDENCE (FORECLOSURE, NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW NOT DEMONSTRATED, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THE FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)

​

, ,

NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW NOT DEMONSTRATED, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THE FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff in this foreclosure action did not demonstrate it met the notice requirements of the Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL):

​

… [P]laintiff submitted an affidavit of its vice president, who averred that he had reviewed the business records, maintained in the regular course of business by the plaintiff, relating to [the] loan. Based upon his review, he averred that the RPAPL 1304 notice was “sent in accordance with New York RPAPL 1304” on January 10, 2011. This unsubstantiated and conclusory statement was insufficient to establish that the required RPAPL 1304 notice was mailed … by registered or certified mail and also by first-class mail… . Further, since the plaintiff was not an assignee of the mortgage at the time the notice allegedly was served, the basis of the vice president’s knowledge is unclear … .

Moreover, [defendant] raised a triable issue of fact with respect to whether the RPAPL 1303 notice was in the proper form … . Central Mtge. Co. v Abraham, 2017 NY Slip Op 03929, 2nd Dept 5-17-17

FORECLOSURE (NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW NOT DEMONSTRATED, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THE FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW (FORECLOSURE, NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW NOT DEMONSTRATED, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THE FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/EVIDENCE (FORECLOSURE, NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW NOT DEMONSTRATED, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THE FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)

,

Arbitrator’s Misapplication of Law Is Not Reviewable by a Court

In affirming the denial of an application to vacate an arbitrator’s award (in which petitioners were found to have wrongfully removed trees), the Fourth Department noted that the misapplication of law by an arbitrator is not reviewable by a court:

We reject, however, petitioners’ contention that the arbitrator’s alleged misapplication of RPAPL 861 is a sufficient ground to vacate the award in its entirety. “An arbitrator’s resolution of questions of substantive law or fact is not judicially reviewable” … . Thus, even assuming, arguendo, that the arbitrator misapplied RPAPL 861, we conclude that such error is beyond our review. Matter of Svenson v Swegan, 2015 NY Slip Op 08525, 4th Dept 11-20-15

 

, ,

Loan Secured by Shares in a Cooperative Apartment Was Not a “Home Loan” Subject to the Pre-Foreclosure Settlement Conference Required by CPLR 3408

The Second Department determined defendant was not entitled to a pre-foreclosure settlement conference under CPLR 3408. The underlying loan was secured by shares in the cooperative apartment where defendant resided. Such a loan was not a “home loan” within the meaning of Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL) 1304, and therefore was not subject to the mandatory settlement conference under the CPLR:

CPLR 3408 requires, in relevant part, that a court hold a mandatory settlement conference in “any residential foreclosure action involving a home loan as such term is defined in section thirteen hundred four of the real property actions and proceeding law” (CPLR 3408[a]). RPAPL 1304 does not include, in its definition of “home loan,” a loan secured by shares of stock and a proprietary lease from a corporation formed for the purpose of cooperative ownership in real estate (RPAPL 1304[5][a][iii]; cf. Banking Law §§ 6-l[1][e][iv]; 6-m[1][d][iv]). Accordingly, because the subject loan is not a home loan within the meaning of RPAPL 1304, the plaintiff is not entitled to a mandatory settlement conference pursuant to CPLR 3408. DaCosta-Harris v Aurora Bank, FSB, 2015 NY Slip Op 06879, 2nd Dept 9-23-15

 

, ,

Requirements for an Easement In Favor of Public Use Not Met

The Second Department determined the city had failed to demonstrate that an unmapped roadway used since the 1970’s had become a public highway under the Highway Law, and the city failed to demonstrate an “easement in favor of public use” existed over the portion of the roadway which was on defendant’s land. The “Highway Law” statute invoked by the city applied only to towns, not cities. And the requirements for an easement in favor of public use had not been demonstrated. The court explained the easement requirements:

The City argues … that an easement in favor of the public was created over the defendant’s property pursuant to the common-law doctrine of dedication. This doctrine requires evidence of the owner’s intent to dedicate the property for public use and acceptance of the dedication by the public authorities … . Here, however, the City’s submissions in support of its motion for summary judgment failed to establish, prima facie, that the defendant’s land had been dedicated to the use of public travel by any prior owner or the defendant. City of New York v Gounden, 2015 NY Slip Op 06569, 2nd Dept 8-19-15

 

, , , ,

Petition Sufficiently Alleged the Town’s Restrictive Covenant Was Invalid (1) Because It Sought to Regulate the Owner of Land Rather than the Use of the Land, (2) Because It No Longer Could Accomplish Its Purpose, and (3) Because It Effected an Unconstitutional Taking of Petitioner’s Land

The Second Department determined petitioner had stated causes of action contesting the validity and enforceability of a restrictive covenant promulgated by the town requiring that condominiums built by petitioner be sold rather than leased. Petitioner had sufficiently alleged (1) the restrictive covenant was invalid because it regulated the person who owned the land (petitioner) rather than the use of the land, (2) the restrictive covenant was not enforceable because its purpose could not be accomplished, and (3) the restrictive covenant amounted to an unconstitutional taking. The court explained the applicable legal principles:

The power to zone “is not a general police power, but a power to regulate land use” … . “It is a fundamental rule that zoning deals basically with land use and not with the person who owns or occupies it'” … . Furthermore, ” a zoning ordinance will be struck down if it bears no substantial relation to the police power objective of promoting the public health, safety, morals or general welfare'” … .

“[R]estrictive covenants will be enforced when the intention of the parties is clear and the limitation is reasonable and not offensive to public policy” … . However, even the ” [p]urchase of property with knowledge of [a] restriction does not bar the purchaser from testing the validity of the zoning ordinance [because] the zoning ordinance in the very nature of things has reference to land rather than to owner'” … .

…[Petitioner] sufficiently alleged that the restrictive covenant is improper because it regulates [petiioner’s] ability as the owner of the property to rent the units rather than the use of the land itself. [Petitioner] has further alleged that, particularly in light of the provision permitting future owners to lease units in the development, the restrictive covenant “bears no substantial relation to . . . the public health, safety, morals or general welfare”… .

“Pursuant to RPAPL 1951(1), a restrictive covenant shall not be enforced if, at the time enforceability of the restriction is brought into question, it appears that the restriction is of no actual and substantial benefit to the persons seeking its enforcement or seeking a declaration or determination of its enforceability, either because the purpose of the restriction has already been accomplished or, by reason of changed conditions or other cause, its purpose is not capable of accomplishment, or for any other reason'” . Here, assuming that there is a benefit to be obtained by requiring the units to be sold rather than rented, [petitioner] has alleged that, because the rental restriction imposed by the restrictive covenant applies only to it and not to any subsequent owner of any of the units in the planned development, it is of no substantial benefit to the Town or its citizens. In support of its motion to dismiss, the Town has offered no explanation as to why this is not so. … * * *

With respect to the third cause of action, which alleged an unconstitutional taking based upon “denial of development, as opposed to excessive exactions” …, the test set forth by the United States Supreme Court in Agins v City of Tiburon (447 US 255) applies … . Pursuant to this test, “a zoning law effects a regulatory taking if either: (1) the ordinance does not substantially advance legitimate state interests’ or (2) the ordinance denies an owner economically viable use of his land'” … . However, “[a] reasonable land use restriction imposed by the government in the exercise of its police power characteristically diminishes the value of private property, but is not rendered unconstitutional merely because it causes the property’s value to be substantially reduced, or because it deprives the property of its most beneficial use” … . Thus, a court must examine “(1) [t]he economic impact of the regulation on the claimant’; (2) the extent to which the regulation has interfered with distinct investment-backed expectations’; and (3) the character of the governmental action'”… . Blue Is. Dev., LLC v Town of Hempstead, 2015 NY Slip Op 06488, 2nd Dept 8-12-15

 

,

Cotenant’s Exclusive Possession and Payment of Taxes and Maintenance Costs, Standing Alone, Are Not Enough to Establish Adverse Possession As Against a Cotenant/Criteria for Ouster of Cotenant Not Met

The Third Department determined that the motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action was properly granted. A cotenant who had resided at the property, maintained the property, and paid the taxes for over two decades, brought an action seeking exclusive ownership based upon ouster of defendant cotenant and/or adverse possession. Neither the complaint nor plaintiff’s submissions established the statutory criteria for ouster or adverse possession (Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law [RPAPL] 541) . There was no unequivocal expression by the possessory cotenant that the property was being adversely possessed, and the inclusion of the defendant cotenant’s name on a property insurance policy belied adverse possession. The court noted that exclusive possession and payment of maintenance expenses by a cotenant, standing alone, do not establish adverse possession:

The law that would have provided … plaintiff a valid legal claim with regard to the underlying property dispute is RPAPL 541, which provides that, “[w]here the relation of tenants in common has existed, the occupancy of one tenant . . . is deemed to have been the possession of the other, notwithstanding that the tenant so occupying the premises . . . has claimed to hold adversely to the other. But this presumption shall cease after the expiration of ten years of continuous exclusive occupancy by such tenant, . . . or immediately upon an ouster by one tenant of the other and such occupying tenant may then commence to hold adversely to his [or her] cotenant.” It is well settled that, “absent ouster, the period required by RPAPL 541 is 20 years of continuous exclusive possession before a cotenant may be said to acquire full title by adverse possession” … .

We reject plaintiff’s contention that she and Lindine ever ousted defendant or defendant’s parents from the property. An ouster will not be deemed to have occurred unless the possessory cotenant, either through words or actions, unequivocally expresses to the nonpossessory cotenant that the property is being adversely possessed … . * * *

Plaintiff alternatively contends that, even if no ouster has been established, she and Lindine adversely possessed the property, given their exclusive use of it for more than two decades (see RPAPL 541). In support of this argument, plaintiff emphasizes that she and Lindine paid all taxes and expenses for the property, and made all necessary repairs to its structural improvements. Defendant never visited the property during the years that plaintiff and Lindine lived there permanently and defendant’s parents, it is claimed, only did so twice. Even accepting these allegations as true, “exclusive possession and the payment of maintenance expenses by a [possessory] cotenant are[, standing alone,] insufficient to establish a claim of right for purposes of adverse possession as against a cotenant” … . Lindine v Iasenza, 2015 NY Slip Op 06275, 3rd Dept 7-23-15

 

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