Greenberg v. Sutter, 257 A.D.2d 646 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999). · Go Syfert
Search
Greenberg v. Sutter, 257 A.D.2d 646 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 4× by 2 distinct cases, 2012–2025 · 2 courts · …is not required to show enmity or specific acts of hostility in order to establish the element of hostility at p. 646 ✓
11 citation events (9 in the last 25 years) across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Millard v. Miner (nysupctkings, 2025-09-03)
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers. How cited ↗
examined Cited as authority (rule) Millard v. Miner (3×)
N.Y. Sup. Kings · 2025 · confidence medium
The party claiming title by adverse possession "is not required to show enmity or specific acts of hostility in order to establish the element of hostility" ( Greenberg v Sutter , 257 AD2d 646, 646 [2d Dept 1999]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) JMMJ Dev., LLC v. Town of Greenport
N.Y. App. Div. · 2023 · confidence medium
Rather, all that is required is a showing that the possession constitutes an actual invasion of, or infringement upon, the owner's rights" ( Greenberg v Sutter , 257 AD2d 646, 646 [2d Dept 1999] [citations omitted]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Meyers v. Berl
N.Y. App. Div. · 2023 · confidence medium
In sum, the right-of-way set forth in the Land Agreement was extinguished by the deed, and the continued use over the ensuing decades constituted " 'an actual invasion of or infringement upon the owner's rights' " ( Parklands E., LLC , 174 AD3d at 1376; see Estate of Becker v Murtagh , 19 NY3d 75, 81-83 [2012]; Greenberg v Sutter , 257 AD2d 646, 646-647 [2d Dept 1999]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Becker v. Murtagh
NY · 2012 · confidence medium
A party claiming title by adverse possession “is not required to show enmity or specific acts of hostility in order to establish the element of hostility” (Greenberg v Sutter, 257 AD2d 646, 646 [2d Dept 1999]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Kelly v. Bastianic
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
Consequently, hostility may be found even though the possession occurred inadvertently or by mistake” (Hall v Sinclaire, 35 AD3d at 663 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Gore v Cambareri, 303 AD2d 551, 553 [2003]; Randisi v Mira Gardens, 272 AD2d 387, 388 [2000]; Greenberg v Sutter, 257 AD2d 646, 646-647 [1999]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Sema T. Greenberg
v.
Richard Sutter, (And a Third-Party Action.)
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Jan 25, 1999.
257 A.D.2d 646
Cited by 8 opinions  |  Published

—In an action, inter alia, for a judgment declaring that the plaintiff is the owner of certain real property by adverse possession, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Ain, J.), entered October 30, 1998, which, upon an order of the same court, entered October 2, 1997, granting the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 4401, made at the close of the plaintiff’s case, for judgment as a matter of law, declared, in effect, that the defendant was the owner of the contested property, and dismissed the complaint. The notice of appeal from the order entered October 2, 1997, is deemed to be a premature notice of appeal from the judgment (see, CPLR 5520 [c]).

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, the order is vacated, the motion is denied, the complaint and the third-party complaint are reinstated, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for a new trial, with costs to abide the event.

At the conclusion of the plaintiff’s case-in-chief the court granted the motion of the defendant Richard Sutter for judgment in his favor as a matter of law, based upon its conclusion that the plaintiff failed to prove a prima facie case of adverse possession. This was error.

The plaintiff made the requisite showing, by clear and convincing evidence, that her possession of the subject property was hostile and under claim of right, actual, open, notorious, exclusive, and continuous for the applicable statutory period (see, Brand v Prince, 35 NY2d 634; Ratona v Low, 226 AD2d 433; Morris v DeSantis, 178 AD2d 515; Manhattan School of Music v Solow, 175 AD2d 106). A plaintiff is not required to show enmity or specific acts of hostility in order to establish the element of hostility (see, Ratona v Low, supra-, Kappes v Ruscio, 170 AD2d 743). Rather, 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[*647] is the likely situation here” (Ratona v Low, supra, at 434; see, Bradt v Giovannone, 35 AD2d 322). Accordingly, a new trial is warranted.

The plaintiffs claim for damages is premature at this juncture. Accordingly, we do not reach it. Mangano, P. J., Miller, Thompson and Luciano, JJ., concur.