Groman v. Botar

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Groman v. Botar

228 A.D.2d 412, 644 N.Y.2d 58, 644 N.Y.S.2d 58, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6201

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 3, 1996·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

A party seeking to obtain title by adverse possession on a claim not based upon a written instrument must produce evidence that the subject premises was either "usually cultivated [413] or improved” or "protected by a substantial inclosure” (RPAPL 522 [1], [2]), consistent with the property’s character, location, condition and potential uses (see, Morris v DeSantis, 178 AD2d 515; Birnbaum v Brody, 156 AD2d 408). In addition, the party must establish, by clear and convincing evidence, the common-law requirements that the possession of the parcel was hostile, under a claim of right, actual, open, notorious and exclusive, and the possession must have been continuous for the statutory period (see, Brand v Prince, 35 NY2d 634; Belotti v Bickhardt, 288 NY 296; Morris v DeSantis, supra). We agree with the court’s determination that the plaintiffs established these elements by clear and convincing evidence as to the property they claimed title to by adverse possession.

As for the property on which the plaintiffs claimed a prescriptive easement, we find that they established the requisite elements (see, 2239 Hylan Blvd. Corp. v Saccheri, 188 AD2d 524).

The defendants’ remaining contentions are without merit. Bracken, J. P., O’Brien, Joy and Florio, JJ., concur.

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

A party seeking to obtain title by adverse possession on a claim not based upon a written instrument must produce evidence that the subject premises was either "usually cultivated [413] or improved” or "protected by a substantial inclosure” (RPAPL 522 [1], [2]), consistent with the property’s character, location, condition and potential uses (see, Morris v DeSantis, 178 AD2d 515; Birnbaum v Brody, 156 AD2d 408). In addition, the party must establish, by clear and convincing evidence, the common-law requirements that the possession of the parcel was hostile, under a claim of right, actual, open, notorious and exclusive, and the possession must have been continuous for the statutory period (see, Brand v Prince, 35 NY2d 634; Belotti v Bickhardt, 288 NY 296; Morris v DeSantis, supra). We agree with the court’s determination that the plaintiffs established these elements by clear and convincing evidence as to the property they claimed title to by adverse possession.

As for the property on which the plaintiffs claimed a prescriptive easement, we find that they established the requisite elements (see, 2239 Hylan Blvd. Corp. v Saccheri, 188 AD2d 524).

The defendants’ remaining contentions are without merit. Bracken, J. P., O’Brien, Joy and Florio, JJ., concur.

Groman v. Botar, 228 A.D.2d 412, 644 N.Y.2d 58, 644 N.Y.S.2d 58, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6201 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

228 A.D.2d 412 (Groman v. Botar) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related