Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
JAMES T. SANDORO, PLAINTIFF–APPELLANT, v. 9274 GROUP, INC., DEFENDANT–RESPONDENT.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action pursuant to RPAPL article 15 seeking, inter alia, a declaration that he had acquired title to a portion of defendant's property by adverse possession. Contrary to the contention of plaintiff, Supreme Court properly denied his motion for summary judgment and granted defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and declaring that defendant is the titled owner of the disputed property (see RPAPL 1521). Defendant met its burden on its cross motion by establishing that at least two of the five elements of adverse possession were not present, i.e., that plaintiff's possession was not hostile and under a claim of right, and that plaintiff's possession did not continue for the requisite 10 years (see Walling v. Przybylo, 7 NY3d 228, 232; see also RPAPL 501[2] ). In support of its cross motion, defendant submitted a letter written by plaintiff during the statutory 10–year period, in which plaintiff acknowledged defendant's ownership of 208 Seneca Street—a large portion of the property in dispute. Plaintiff's acknowledgment of defendant's ownership negates the element of hostility during the requisite period as a matter of law (see Van Gorder v. Masterplanned, Inc., 78 N.Y.2d 1106, 1107–1108; Bedell v. Shaw, 59 N.Y. 46, 49), and plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact (see generally Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557, 562). We reject plaintiff's contention that his letter referred to a different parcel of real property, and we conclude that plaintiff's deposition testimony on that point was merely an attempt to avoid the legal consequences of his letter by raising feigned issues of fact (see Taillie v Rochester Gas & Elec. Corp., 68 AD3d 1808, 1809). In any event, the confusing and conflicting deposition testimony about what this letter may have referred to makes it impossible as a matter of law to support a finding of hostility by clear and convincing evidence (see Snyder v. Fabrizio, 2 AD3d 1464, 1464–1465, lv denied 2 NY3d 703). Moreover, plaintiff conceded that his use of the property was sporadic after his student parking contract with a local college expired, and he therefore failed to raise an issue of fact whether his use of the disputed property was continuous during the requisite period (see Aubuchon Realty Company Inc. v Cohen, 294 A.D.2d 738, 739; see generally Zuckerman, 49 N.Y.2d at 562). In light of our determination, we do not address plaintiff's remaining contentions.
Frances E. Cafarell
Clerk of the Court
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: CA 13–00765
Decided: February 14, 2014
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)