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.
OAK PONDS, LLC, Respondent, v. Doris T. WILLUMSEN, et al., Appellants.
In an action to quiet title, the defendants appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Lifson, J.), entered October 25, 2001, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and, upon searching the record, granted summary judgment to the plaintiff.
ORDERED that the judgment is modified by deleting the provision thereof which, upon searching the record, granted summary judgment to the plaintiff; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed, without costs and disbursements.
An effective claim of adverse possession has five elements: “First, the possession must be hostile and under claim of right; second, it must be actual; third, it must be open and notorious; fourth, it must be exclusive; and fifth, it must be continuous” for the statutory period of 10 years (MAG Assocs. v. SDR Realty, 247 A.D.2d 516, 669 N.Y.S.2d 314; see Ray v. Beacon Hudson Mtn. Corp., 88 N.Y.2d 154, 643 N.Y.S.2d 939, 666 N.E.2d 532). These elements must be established by clear and convincing evidence (see MAG Assocs. v. SDR Realty, supra). Awareness that others own the property upon entry on the property or within the 10-year statutory period will defeat any claim of right (see Bockowski v. Malak, 280 A.D.2d 572, 720 N.Y.S.2d 557; Joseph v. Whitcombe, 279 A.D.2d 122, 719 N.Y.S.2d 44; Oistacher v. Rosenblatt, 220 A.D.2d 493, 631 N.Y.S.2d 935; Schoenfeld v. Chapman, 280 App.Div. 464, 115 N.Y.S.2d 1).
Here, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment, but improperly granted summary judgment to the plaintiff upon searching the record. Issues of fact exist, including but not limited to, whether the defendants possessed the disputed property under a claim of right. Contrary to the Supreme Court's conclusion, the statement in the affidavit by the defendant Doris T. Willumsen that the defendants maintained the property “as if [they] owned it,” was insufficient to constitute an admission that the property was not possessed under a claim of right.
Thank you for your feedback!
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.
Decided: June 24, 2002
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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)