82 Willis Avenue Corp. v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

82 Willis Avenue Corp. v. State

181 A.D.2d 545

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 19, 1992·No. Claim No. 72005·Published

Opinion

— Judgment, Court of Claims (Adolph C. Orlando, J.), entered February 5, 1991, which dismissed claimants’ claim for failure to establish adverse possession of the disputed property, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

A review of the record demonstrates that claimants have failed to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that they adversely possessed the disputed property (see, Rusoff v Engel, 89 AD2d 587). Indeed, claimants have not established the five elements necessary to prove adverse possession, i.e., the possession must be hostile and under a claim of right, actual, open and notorious, exclusive, and continuous for the statutory period (see, Esposito v Stackler, 160 AD2d 1154, 1155). Here, the evidence indicates, inter alia, that the claimants’ deed clearly did not include the disputed property and that claimants’ use was neither hostile nor open and notorious. (See, RPAPL 522; Golden Hammer Auto Body Corp. v Consolidated Rail Corp., 151 AD2d 545.) Concur — Murphy, P. J., Carro, Rosenberger, Kupferman and Ross, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

— Judgment, Court of Claims (Adolph C. Orlando, J.), entered February 5, 1991, which dismissed claimants’ claim for failure to establish adverse possession of the disputed property, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

A review of the record demonstrates that claimants have failed to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that they adversely possessed the disputed property (see, Rusoff v Engel, 89 AD2d 587). Indeed, claimants have not established the five elements necessary to prove adverse possession, i.e., the possession must be hostile and under a claim of right, actual, open and notorious, exclusive, and continuous for the statutory period (see, Esposito v Stackler, 160 AD2d 1154, 1155). Here, the evidence indicates, inter alia, that the claimants’ deed clearly did not include the disputed property and that claimants’ use was neither hostile nor open and notorious. (See, RPAPL 522; Golden Hammer Auto Body Corp. v Consolidated Rail Corp., 151 AD2d 545.) Concur — Murphy, P. J., Carro, Rosenberger, Kupferman and Ross, JJ.

82 Willis Avenue Corp. v. State, 181 A.D.2d 545 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

181 A.D.2d 545 (82 Willis Avenue Corp. v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related