Leong v Larroca Finest Home Design, LLC
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Residential real property boundary dispute and adverse possession under post-2008 New York standards.
The Supreme Court, Queens County, in effect, denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment and declined to declare that plaintiffs lacked title, allowing all claims to proceed.
The Appellate Division modified by granting summary judgment dismissing the adverse possession, trespass, unlawful ejectment, and injunctive relief claims, and declared plaintiffs are not owners by adverse possession; it affirmed the denial of summary judgment on negligence.
Plaintiffs could not satisfy the 'claim of right' element under RPAPL 501 because they knew since at least July 15, 2009 that the disputed strip was outside their deeded boundary, defeating adverse possession; without title, their trespass, unlawful ejectment, and injunctive claims also failed. The negligence claim survived because it did not depend on title and the defendant failed to make a prima facie showing under the summary judgment standard.
Background
The plaintiffs own residential property abutting the rear of the defendant’s parcel. Plaintiffs purchased in 2009 and used a portion of the defendant’s land as part of their backyard. Defendant acquired its property in 2022. In 2023, plaintiffs brought an action under Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL) article 15 [statutory mechanism to obtain a judgment declaring interests in real property (quiet title)] seeking a declaration of ownership by adverse possession, along with claims for trespass, unlawful ejectment, negligence, and related injunctive relief. The dispute centers on a strip at the rear of the properties. The record showed plaintiffs were aware since at least July 15, 2009 that the strip was not within their deeded boundaries, implicating RPAPL 501 [post-2008 statutory definition of 'claim of right' as a reasonable basis for the belief that the property belongs to the adverse possessor].
Lower Court Decision
By order entered January 8, 2025, the Supreme Court, Queens County, in effect, denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint and for a declaration that plaintiffs did not obtain title by adverse possession.
Appellate Division Reversal
Modified on the law: granted summary judgment dismissing the first (adverse possession), second (trespass), third (unlawful ejectment), and fifth (injunctive relief) causes of action, and declared that plaintiffs are not the owners of the disputed property by adverse possession. Affirmed the denial of summary judgment on the fourth cause of action (negligence) because the claim did not depend on title and the defendant failed to establish prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. Remitted for entry of a judgment reflecting the declaratory determination; costs awarded to the defendant.
Legal Significance
Reaffirms that, under the 2008 amendments to New York’s adverse possession law, a claimant must have a reasonable, good-faith basis to believe the property is theirs; actual knowledge that the land lies outside the deeded boundary negates the 'claim of right' element under RPAPL 501 and is fatal to adverse possession claims. Related tort and equitable claims tied to title (trespass, ejectment, injunctive relief) fall with the adverse possession claim, while negligence claims independent of title may proceed absent a prima facie showing by the movant.
Post-2008 New York adverse possession requires a reasonable belief of ownership; if a claimant knows the land is not theirs, adverse possession and title-dependent claims fail, though independent negligence claims can survive if the movant does not meet its summary judgment burden.