Sinicropi v. Town of Indian Lake, 148 A.D.2d 799 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989). · Go Syfert
Search
Sinicropi v. Town of Indian Lake, 148 A.D.2d 799 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
42 citation events (11 in the last 25 years) across 7 distinct courts.
Treatment trajectory · 1989 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1989 2007 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 14 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Genesee County Fish & Game Protective Assn., Inc. v. Sullivan
N.Y. App. Div. · 2025 · confidence medium
In that regard, to the extent that defendants rely on the record evidence that there were no affirmative "acts of hostility" between the parties, that reliance is misplaced because "the element of 'hostility' need not be supported by proof of enmity or literally hostile acts" ( Kappes , 170 AD2d at 744 ; see Golobe , — NY3d at &mdash, 2025 NY Slip Op 01670, *4 ; Becker , 19 NY3d at 81 ; Sinicropi v Town of Indian Lake , 148 AD2d 799, 800 [3d Dept 1989]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Rensselaer Polytechnic Inst. v. Schubert
N.Y. App. Div. · 2019 · confidence medium
Accordingly, the affidavit establishes only that the neighbor, and perhaps the parties' predecessors in title, may have been mistaken as to the location of the property line — a circumstance that would not defeat a finding of hostility ( see Fatone v Vona , 287 AD2d 854, 856-857 [2001]; Sinicropi v Town of Indian Lake , 148 AD2d 799, 800 [1989]; Bradt v Giovannone , 35 AD2d 322, 325-326 [1970]; see also Walling v Przybylo , 7 NY3d 228, 232-233 [2006]).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Minor v. Minor
N.C. Ct. App. · 2012 · confidence medium
Sinicropi v. Town of Indian Lake, 538 N.Y.S.2d 380, 381 (N.Y.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Goss v. Trombly
N.Y. App. Div. · 2007 · confidence medium
The element of “hostility will be presumed if the use is open, notorious and continuous for the full 10-year statutory period,” and may be found even where the plaintiff possessed the property through inadvertence or mistake (Birkholz v Wells, 272 AD2d 665, 667 [2000]; see Fatone v Vona, 287 AD2d 854, 856-857 [2001]; Sinicropi v Town of Indian Lake, 148 AD2d 799, 800 [1989]).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Phillips v. Sollami
N.Y. App. Div. · 1995 · confidence medium
The presumption of hostility thereby arises (see, Sinicropi v Town of Indian Lake, supra, at 800; 2 NY Jur 2d, Adverse Possession, § 17, at 324-325) which was not overcome by plaintiff’s proof.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Talmage v. Ronald Altman Trust
E.D.N.Y · 1994 · confidence medium
See Levy v. Kurpil, 168 A.D.2d 881 , 564 N.Y.S.2d 556 (3d Dep’t 1990), appeal denied, 77 N.Y.2d 808 , 570 N.Y.S.2d 489 , 573 N.E.2d 577 (1991); Sinicropi v. Town of Indian Lake, 148 A.D.2d 799 , 538 N.Y.S.2d 380, 381 (3d Dep’t 1989); City of Tonawanda, 449 N.Y.S.2d at 119 .
cited Cited as authority (rule) Jarvis v. Gillespie
Vt. · 1991 · confidence medium
Grubb v. State, 433 N.W.2d 915, 918 (Minn. Ct. App. 1988); Sinicropi v. Town of Indian Lake, 148 A.D.2d 799, 800 , 538 N.Y.S.2d 380, 381 (1989); 7 R.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Levy v. Kurpil
N.Y. App. Div. · 1990 · confidence medium
Here, plaintiffs possession did not require a showing of enmity or specific acts of hostility (see, Sinicropi v Town of Indian Lake, supra, at 800).
discussed Cited "see" Ferguson v. Hart
N.Y. App. Div. · 2017 · signal: see · confidence high
Carman v Hewitt, 280 App Div 866 , 866 [1952], affd 305 NY 718 [1953]; see generally Sinicropi v Town of Indian Lake, 148 AD2d 799, 800 [1989] [hostile possession is “an actual invasion of or infringement upon the owner’s rights”]). 3 After a nonjury trial, plaintiffs moved to conform the pleadings to the proof.
discussed Cited "see" Stickler v. HALEVY (2×)
E.D.N.Y · 2011 · signal: see · confidence high
See Sinicropi v. Town of Indian Lake, 148 A.D.2d 799 , 538 N.Y.S.2d 380, 381 (1989).
discussed Cited "see" Birkholz v. Wells
N.Y. App. Div. · 2000 · signal: see · confidence high
“Indeed, hostility may be found even though the possession occurred inadvertently or by mistake” (Kappes v Ruscio, 170 AD2d 743, 744 ; see, Sinicropi v Town of Indian Lake, supra; Bradt v Giovannone, 35 AD2d 322, 325-326 ; West v Tilley, 33 AD2d 228, 231 , lv denied 27 NY2d 481 ).
discussed Cited "see" Mohawk Paper Mills, Inc. v. Colaruotolo
N.Y. App. Div. · 1998 · signal: see · confidence high
To sustain her claim, defendant was “required to establish by clear and convincing evidence that [her] possession was hostile and under claim of right, actual, open and notorious, exclusive and continuous for the statutory 10-year period * * * and, in addition, that the property was either ‘usually cultivated or improved’ or ‘protected by a substantial inclosure’ ” (Yamin v Daly, 205 AD2d 870, 871 , quoting RPAPL 522 [1], [2] [citations omitted]). “[T]he element of‘hostility’ need not be supported by proof of enmity or literally hostile acts * * * All that is required is a sh…
discussed Cited "see" Kappes v. Ruscio
N.Y. App. Div. · 1991 · signal: see · confidence high
In our view, defendants have established that their possession of the disputed property was "hostile and under claim of right, actual, open and notorious, exclusive and continuous” for the requisite 10-year period (Brand v Prince, 35 NY2d 634, 636 ; see, Sinicropi v Town of Indian Lake, 148 AD2d 799, 800 ).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Piasecki v. Stauble
N.Y. App. Div. · 1990 · signal: see also · confidence low
Although defendants submitted evidence that plaintiff did not improve the strip of land at issue for the requisite time period, plaintiff has submitted rebuttal evidence sufficient to raise triable issues of fact (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 ; see also, Sinicropi v Town of Indian Lake, 148 AD2d 799, 800 ).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Angelina Sinicropi
v.
Town of Indian Lake
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Mar 2, 1989.
148 A.D.2d 799
Casey.
Cited by 30 opinions  |  Published
Casey, J.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (White, J.), entered April 11,1988 in Hamilton County, which, inter alia, granted defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

In the summer of 1965, defendant, a town in Hamilton County, constructed a public bathhouse, containing toilet facilities, in the hamlet of Blue Mountain Lake on a parcel of land that defendant had purchased the prior year. The structure, which was 15 to 18 feet in length, is alleged to encroach on plaintiffs abutting lot, approximately .1 foot on the western side to 1.1 feet on the southeastern side. In 1985, plaintiff, who had previously owned the abutting parcel with others, acquired sole ownership and apparently had the encroachment confirmed by her land surveyor.

Plaintiff, acting pro se, commenced this action to remove the encroachment. In its answer, defendant claimed title to the property encroached upon by adverse possession and moved for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint on this basis. In support of its motion, defendant submitted affidavits showing that the structure was erected in 1965 and that the 10-year limitations period had, therefore, been established. Plaintiff contended that the limitations period did not commence until the fact of the encroachment became known, since prior to that date the holding was not hostile. Supreme Court determined that defendant had established its defense by clear and convincing evidence and granted its cross motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff appeals.

Initially, it appears that plaintiffs notice of appeal was not filed with the Hamilton County Clerk, although defendant admits having received a timely notice of appeal from plaintiff. A letter to this court indicates that plaintiff may have erroneously filed her notice of appeal with the Fulton County Clerk. Contrary to defendant’s claim, we do not consider that plaintiff has forfeited her right to appeal by this inadvertence (see, CPLR 5520 [a]). Plaintiff alleges that the Fulton County Clerk’s office advised that the notice of appeal was being sent to the Hamilton County Clerk. Therefore, we will consider the[*800] appeal on the merits (cf., Frankel v Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co., 106 AD2d 542).

Having so concluded, we believe that defendant has made the requisite showing that its possession was "hostile and under claim of right, actual, open and notorious, exclusive and continuous” (Brand v Prince, 35 NY2d 634, 636). Contrary to plaintiffs claim of lack of hostility, defendant’s possession does not require a showing of enmity or specific acts of hostility (see, Anderson v Koroleski, 237 NYS2d 397, 399); all that is required is a showing that the possession constitutes an actual invasion of or infringement upon the owner’s rights (see, Weil v Snyder, 25 AD2d 605). Consequently, hostility may be found even though the possession occurred inadvertently or by mistake, as is the likely situation here (see, Bradt v Giovannone, 35 AD2d 322, 325-326). In any event, if the use is open, notorious and continuous for the full 10-year statutory period, a presumption of hostility arises (Belotti v Bickhardt, 228 NY 296; Wildove v Papa, 223 App Div 211, 215). The showing here by defendant constituted clear and convincing evidence sufficient to warrant the court to direct judgment in its favor (CPLR 3212 [b]); inasmuch as plaintiff has failed to rebut such evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562), summary judgment was proper. Defendant, as an adverse user, erected the building and openly possessed it, thus charging plaintiff with notice of these visible physical facts (see, Post v Irons, 44 AD2d 630).

Finally, plaintiff argues that the grant of adverse possession to defendant, in effect, sanctions violation of the restrictive covenants in her deed. Assuming, without deciding, that the adversely possessed land here remains subject to the restrictive covenants contained in plaintiff’s deed, plaintiff has made no showing as a matter of law that would support injunctive relief (see, Medvin v Grauer, 46 AD2d 912) or the privity required for an action at law for damages (see, Zamiarski v Kozial, 18 AD2d 297, 300). The order of Supreme Court should, therefore, be affirmed.

Order affirmed, without costs. Kane, J. P., Casey, Weiss, Levine and Mercure, JJ., concur.