Rose v County of Nassau
Categories
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Real property law; whether homeowners acquired county-owned land by adverse possession.
The Supreme Court, Nassau County, granted the plaintiffs summary judgment declaring that they owned the disputed parcel by adverse possession and denied the County's cross-motion.
The Appellate Division reversed the order insofar as appealed from, denied the plaintiffs' summary judgment motion, granted the County's cross-motion, and remitted for entry of a declaratory judgment that the plaintiffs are not the owners by adverse possession.
The County showed that the plaintiffs lacked the required claim of right under RPAPL 501(3) [defines "claim of right" as a reasonable basis for the belief that the property belongs to the adverse possessor or property owner], because the plaintiffs knew by at least 2014 that the fenced parcel was on County land. The County also showed the use was permissive, and the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact on tacking or on any reasonable basis for believing the parcel belonged to them.
Background
The plaintiffs bought their Woodmere home in 2005. Their backyard bordered a strip of County-owned grass and open space next to Motts Creek. Soon after purchase, they replaced a broken rear fence, but the new fence enclosed about 900 square feet of County property. The plaintiffs said they first learned from a 2014 survey that the fence sat on County land. In 2022, they sued for a declaration that they had obtained title to that parcel by adverse possession.
Lower Court Decision
After discovery, the plaintiffs moved for summary judgment on their adverse possession claim, and the County cross-moved for summary judgment declaring that the plaintiffs had not acquired the parcel. The Supreme Court granted the plaintiffs' motion and denied the County's cross-motion.
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division held that the County made a prima facie showing that the plaintiffs did not acquire title by adverse possession. The court emphasized that adverse possession requires possession that is hostile and under a claim of right, actual, open and notorious, exclusive, and continuous for the statutory period. Because the plaintiffs knew by at least 2014 that the parcel was not within their deeded property, they could not show a reasonable basis to believe the land belonged to them under RPAPL 501(3) [defines "claim of right" as a reasonable basis for the belief that the property belongs to the adverse possessor or property owner]. The court also found that the County established the plaintiffs' use was permissive. The plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue on whether they could satisfy the 10-year period through tacking, since there was no showing that their predecessors intended to and actually transferred possession of the undescribed parcel along with the deeded property. The matter was remitted for entry of a judgment declaring that the plaintiffs are not the owners of the disputed parcel by adverse possession.
Legal Significance
The decision reinforces the effect of the 2008 amendments to New York adverse possession law, which narrowed claims by requiring a genuine and reasonable belief of ownership. It also underscores that once a claimant knows the land belongs to someone else, establishing the claim-of-right element becomes difficult or impossible. In addition, the case confirms that tacking is not automatic; a claimant must show that a predecessor actually intended to transfer possession of the disputed, undescribed area.
A homeowner who learns that a fenced-in area belongs to another owner, especially a municipality, cannot rely on continued use alone to prove adverse possession. Without a reasonable belief of ownership and competent proof supporting tacking, the adverse possession claim fails.