Bartley v Morgan
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Whether res judicata bars a separate adverse possession action between cotenants after a partial summary judgment in a pending partition action.
The Supreme Court, Kings County denied Bartley’s motion for summary judgment on adverse possession and granted Morgan’s cross-motion, dismissing the complaint as barred by res judicata.
Nothing. The order was affirmed.
The majority held that an order granting summary judgment has preclusive effect and, under New York’s transactional approach to res judicata, Bartley’s adverse possession claim— which could have been asserted in the partition action but was not timely raised—cannot be relitigated in a separate action because it would impair rights established in the prior proceeding.
Background
Siblings Carol Bartley and Winston Morgan purchased Brooklyn real property in 1993 as tenants in common. Morgan contributed $23,500 toward the $235,000 purchase price; Bartley moved in, paid off the mortgage, and lived there for over 30 years. In 2019, Morgan commenced a partition and sale action and sought an accounting. In 2021, the Supreme Court granted Morgan partial summary judgment to the extent of appointing a referee to determine the parties’ rights, shares, and interests and whether a sale was necessary as required before an interlocutory judgment under RPAPL 915 [interlocutory judgment in partition actions determining parties' rights and directing partition or sale]. In November 2021, Bartley sought to amend to assert adverse possession under RPAPL 541 [adverse possession claims]; the motion was denied in August 2022 as untimely. Her related appeals were deemed dismissed for failure to perfect. In November 2022, Bartley filed a separate declaratory judgment action claiming sole ownership by adverse possession. The Supreme Court denied her motion for summary judgment and granted Morgan’s cross-motion dismissing the complaint as barred by res judicata. Bartley appealed.
Lower Court Decision
The Supreme Court, Kings County denied Bartley’s summary judgment motion and granted Morgan’s cross-motion dismissing the adverse possession complaint on res judicata grounds, reasoning that Bartley failed to timely assert adverse possession in the prior partition action and could not collaterally attack the partial summary judgment order entered there.
Appellate Division Reversal
Affirmed. The majority held res judicata applies because the earlier order granting summary judgment in the partition action was on the merits and preclusive under New York’s transactional approach; Bartley’s later claim would impair rights established there, and she could have timely raised adverse possession in that action. A partial concurrence/dissent (Taylor, J.) would deny Morgan’s cross-motion, concluding res judicata does not apply absent a final merits determination in the partition action and noting an interlocutory judgment under RPAPL 915 is a prerequisite and is never res judicata; however, the dissent would still deny Bartley’s summary judgment motion on adverse possession due to triable issues (e.g., her reasonable belief of sole ownership).
Legal Significance
The decision underscores that, in the Second Department, New York’s transactional approach to res judicata can preclude a later adverse possession action between cotenants when a prior partition action has resulted in an order granting summary judgment on substantive issues, even if the partition action has not culminated in an interlocutory or final judgment under RPAPL 915/927 [final judgment in partition actions]. Parties must timely assert adverse possession defenses or counterclaims within the partition action or risk preclusion.
In partition disputes, assert all available defenses and counterclaims—including adverse possession under RPAPL 541—within the first action. Under New York’s broad transactional res judicata, a prior summary judgment order in the partition case can bar a later, separate adverse possession suit, and collateral review is not permitted.