practical location doctrine in New York

2025"Pursuant to the doctrine of practical location, [a] practical location of a boundary line and an acquiescence therein for more than the statutory period is conclusive of the location of such boundary . . . although such line may not in fact be the true line according to the calls of the deeds of the adjoining owners" ( Czenszak v Iasello , 227 AD3d 772, 773 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Katz v Kaiser , 154 NY 294, 298-299; Jakubowicz v Solomon , 107 AD3d 852, 853). "'[A]pplication of the doctrine requires a clear demarcation of a boundary line and proof that there is mutual acquiesc

2025"Pursuant to the doctrine of practical location, [a] practical location of a boundary line and an acquiescence therein for more than the statutory period is conclusive of the location of such boundary . . . although such line may not in fact be the true line according to the calls of the deeds of the adjoining owners" ( Czenszak v Iasello , 227 AD3d 772, 773 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Katz v Kaiser , 154 NY 294, 298-299; Jakubowicz v Solomon , 107 AD3d 852, 853). "'[A]pplication of the doctrine requires a clear demarcation of a boundary line and proof that there is mutual acquiesc

2014Pursuant to the doctrine of practical location, “the practical location of a boundary line and an acquiescence of the parties therein for a period of more than [the statutory period govern ing adverse possession] is conclusive of the location of the boundary line” (Kaneb v Lamay, 58 AD3d 1097, 1098 [2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 709 [2009] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; accord Robert v Shaul, 62 AD3d 1127, 1128 [2009]; see McMahon v Thornton, 69 AD3d 1157, 1160 [2010]). “[Application of the doctrine requires a clear demarcation of a boundary line and proof that there is mutual acq

2014Pursuant to the doctrine of practical location, “the practical location of a boundary line and an acquiescence of the parties therein for a period of more than [the statutory period govern ing adverse possession] is conclusive of the location of the boundary line” (Kaneb v Lamay, 58 AD3d 1097, 1098 [2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 709 [2009] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; accord Robert v Shaul, 62 AD3d 1127, 1128 [2009]; see McMahon v Thornton, 69 AD3d 1157, 1160 [2010]). “[Application of the doctrine requires a clear demarcation of a boundary line and proof that there is mutual acq

2014Pursuant to the doctrine of practical location, “the practical location of a boundary line and an acquiescence of the parties therein for a period of more than [the statutory period govern ing adverse possession] is conclusive of the location of the boundary line” (Kaneb v Lamay, 58 AD3d 1097, 1098 [2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 709 [2009] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; accord Robert v Shaul, 62 AD3d 1127, 1128 [2009]; see McMahon v Thornton, 69 AD3d 1157, 1160 [2010]). “[Application of the doctrine requires a clear demarcation of a boundary line and proof that there is mutual acq

2014Pursuant to the doctrine of practical location, “the practical location of a boundary line and an acquiescence of the parties therein for a period of more than [the statutory period govern ing adverse possession] is conclusive of the location of the boundary line” (Kaneb v Lamay, 58 AD3d 1097, 1098 [2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 709 [2009] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; accord Robert v Shaul, 62 AD3d 1127, 1128 [2009]; see McMahon v Thornton, 69 AD3d 1157, 1160 [2010]). “[Application of the doctrine requires a clear demarcation of a boundary line and proof that there is mutual acq

2025"Pursuant to the doctrine of practical location, [a] practical location of a boundary line and an acquiescence therein for more than the statutory period is conclusive of the location of such boundary . . . although such line may not in fact be the true line according to the calls of the deeds of the adjoining owners" ( Czenszak v Iasello , 227 AD3d 772, 773 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Katz v Kaiser , 154 NY 294, 298-299; Jakubowicz v Solomon , 107 AD3d 852, 853). "'[A]pplication of the doctrine requires a clear demarcation of a boundary line and proof that there is mutual acquiesc

2025"Pursuant to the doctrine of practical location, [a] practical location of a boundary line and an acquiescence therein for more than the statutory period is conclusive of the location of such boundary . . . although such line may not in fact be the true line according to the calls of the deeds of the adjoining owners" ( Czenszak v Iasello , 227 AD3d 772, 773 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Katz v Kaiser , 154 NY 294, 298-299; Jakubowicz v Solomon , 107 AD3d 852, 853). "'[A]pplication of the doctrine requires a clear demarcation of a boundary line and proof that there is mutual acquiesc

2025"Pursuant to the doctrine of practical location, [a] practical location of a boundary line and an acquiescence therein for more than the statutory period is conclusive of the location of such boundary . . . although such line may not in fact be the true line according to the calls of the deeds of the adjoining owners" ( Czenszak v Iasello , 227 AD3d 772, 773 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Katz v Kaiser , 154 NY 294, 298-299; Jakubowicz v Solomon , 107 AD3d 852, 853). "'[A]pplication of the doctrine requires a clear demarcation of a boundary line and proof that there is mutual acquiesc

2025Contrary to the defendant's contention, a mistake between adjoining landowners fixing the true boundary line is not a required element for the doctrine of practical location to apply ( see Katz v Kaiser , 154 NY at 298; Baldwin v Brown , 16 NY 359, 361).

2016Accordingly, we find no error in the court’s holding that the boundary line between the parcels was established by the doctrine of practical location (see Gibbs v Porath, 121 AD3d at 1213-1214 ; Hazen v Hazen, 26 AD3d 696, 697-698 [2006]; compare Kennedy v Nimons, 121 AD3d 1229, 1232 [2014]).

2014We also reject plaintiff’s contention that Supreme Court should have granted his cross motion for summary judgment based on the doctrine of practical location. * By this doctrine, “ ‘[a] practical location of a boundary line and an acquiescence therein for more than the statutory period is conclusive of the location of such boundary . . . although such line may not in fact be the true line according to the calls of the deeds of the adjoining owners’ ” (Hazen v Hazen, 26 AD3d 696, 697-698 [2006], quoting Fisher v MacVean, 25 AD2d 575, 575 [1966]).

2014We also reject plaintiff’s contention that Supreme Court should have granted his cross motion for summary judgment based on the doctrine of practical location. * By this doctrine, “ ‘[a] practical location of a boundary line and an acquiescence therein for more than the statutory period is conclusive of the location of such boundary . . . although such line may not in fact be the true line according to the calls of the deeds of the adjoining owners’ ” (Hazen v Hazen, 26 AD3d 696, 697-698 [2006], quoting Fisher v MacVean, 25 AD2d 575, 575 [1966]).

2014We also reject plaintiff’s contention that Supreme Court should have granted his cross motion for summary judgment based on the doctrine of practical location. * By this doctrine, “ ‘[a] practical location of a boundary line and an acquiescence therein for more than the statutory period is conclusive of the location of such boundary . . . although such line may not in fact be the true line according to the calls of the deeds of the adjoining owners’ ” (Hazen v Hazen, 26 AD3d 696, 697-698 [2006], quoting Fisher v MacVean, 25 AD2d 575, 575 [1966]).

2025Contrary to the defendant's contention, a mistake between adjoining landowners fixing the true boundary line is not a required element for the doctrine of practical location to apply ( see Katz v Kaiser , 154 NY at 298; Baldwin v Brown , 16 NY 359, 361).

2025Contrary to the defendant's contention, a mistake between adjoining landowners fixing the true boundary line is not a required element for the doctrine of practical location to apply ( see Katz v Kaiser , 154 NY at 298; Baldwin v Brown , 16 NY 359, 361).

2025"Pursuant to the doctrine of practical location, [a] practical location of a boundary line and an acquiescence therein for more than the statutory period is conclusive of the location of such boundary . . . although such line may not in fact be the true line according to the calls of the deeds of the adjoining owners" ( Czenszak v Iasello , 227 AD3d 772, 773 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Katz v Kaiser , 154 NY 294, 298-299; Jakubowicz v Solomon , 107 AD3d 852, 853). "'[A]pplication of the doctrine requires a clear demarcation of a boundary line and proof that there is mutual acquiesc

2025"Pursuant to the doctrine of practical location, [a] practical location of a boundary line and an acquiescence therein for more than the statutory period is conclusive of the location of such boundary . . . although such line may not in fact be the true line according to the calls of the deeds of the adjoining owners" ( Czenszak v Iasello , 227 AD3d 772, 773 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Katz v Kaiser , 154 NY 294, 298-299; Jakubowicz v Solomon , 107 AD3d 852, 853). "'[A]pplication of the doctrine requires a clear demarcation of a boundary line and proof that there is mutual acquiesc

2016Defendant offered no evidence that the parties had agreed upon or acquiesced in a “clear demarcation” of the boundary line (McMahon v Thornton, 69 AD3d 1157, 1160 [2010]) that differed from the boundary shown on the survey, or that such a boundary was “definitely and equally known, understood and settled” (Robert v Shaul, 62 AD3d 1127, 1128 [2009] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]) for the *1212 requisite statutory period, all of which are necessary elements to support such a claim (see Kennedy v Nimons, 121 AD3d 1229, 1232 [2014]).

2016Accordingly, we find no error in the court’s holding that the boundary line between the parcels was established by the doctrine of practical location (see Gibbs v Porath, 121 AD3d at 1213-1214 ; Hazen v Hazen, 26 AD3d 696, 697-698 [2006]; compare Kennedy v Nimons, 121 AD3d 1229, 1232 [2014]).

2013Pursuant to the doctrine of practical location, “[a] practical location of a boundary line and an acquiescence therein for more than the statutory period is conclusive of the location of such boundary . . . although such line may not in fact be the true line according to the calls of the deeds of the adjoining owners” (McMahon v Thornton, 69 AD3d 1157, 1160 [2010] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Katz v Kaiser, 154 NY 294, 298 [1897]; Baldwin v Brown, 16 NY 359, 362-364 [1857]; Kaneb v Lamay, 58 AD3d 1097, 1098 [2009]). “[A]pplication of the doctrine requires a clear demarcation of a bo

2013Pursuant to the doctrine of practical location, “[a] practical location of a boundary line and an acquiescence therein for more than the statutory period is conclusive of the location of such boundary . . . although such line may not in fact be the true line according to the calls of the deeds of the adjoining owners” (McMahon v Thornton, 69 AD3d 1157, 1160 [2010] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Katz v Kaiser, 154 NY 294, 298 [1897]; Baldwin v Brown, 16 NY 359, 362-364 [1857]; Kaneb v Lamay, 58 AD3d 1097, 1098 [2009]). “[A]pplication of the doctrine requires a clear demarcation of a bo

2013Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contention, an unknown or disputed boundary line and an agreement between adjoining owners fixing the true boundary line are not required elements for the doctrine of practical location to apply (see Katz v Kaiser, 154 NY at 298-299 ; Sherman v Kane, 86 NY 57, 73 [1881]; Baldwin v Brown, 16 NY at 362-364 ; Bell v Hayes, 60 App Div 382, 386-387 [1901]; cf. Harris v Oakley, 130 NY 1, 5 [1891]; Wood v Lafayette, 46 NY 484, 488 [1871]).

2013Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contention, an unknown or disputed boundary line and an agreement between adjoining owners fixing the true boundary line are not required elements for the doctrine of practical location to apply (see Katz v Kaiser, 154 NY at 298-299 ; Sherman v Kane, 86 NY 57, 73 [1881]; Baldwin v Brown, 16 NY at 362-364 ; Bell v Hayes, 60 App Div 382, 386-387 [1901]; cf. Harris v Oakley, 130 NY 1, 5 [1891]; Wood v Lafayette, 46 NY 484, 488 [1871]).

2013Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contention, an unknown or disputed boundary line and an agreement between adjoining owners fixing the true boundary line are not required elements for the doctrine of practical location to apply (see Katz v Kaiser, 154 NY at 298-299 ; Sherman v Kane, 86 NY 57, 73 [1881]; Baldwin v Brown, 16 NY at 362-364 ; Bell v Hayes, 60 App Div 382, 386-387 [1901]; cf. Harris v Oakley, 130 NY 1, 5 [1891]; Wood v Lafayette, 46 NY 484, 488 [1871]).

2013Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contention, an unknown or disputed boundary line and an agreement between adjoining owners fixing the true boundary line are not required elements for the doctrine of practical location to apply (see Katz v Kaiser, 154 NY at 298-299 ; Sherman v Kane, 86 NY 57, 73 [1881]; Baldwin v Brown, 16 NY at 362-364 ; Bell v Hayes, 60 App Div 382, 386-387 [1901]; cf. Harris v Oakley, 130 NY 1, 5 [1891]; Wood v Lafayette, 46 NY 484, 488 [1871]).

2013Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contention, an unknown or disputed boundary line and an agreement between adjoining owners fixing the true boundary line are not required elements for the doctrine of practical location to apply (see Katz v Kaiser, 154 NY at 298-299 ; Sherman v Kane, 86 NY 57, 73 [1881]; Baldwin v Brown, 16 NY at 362-364 ; Bell v Hayes, 60 App Div 382, 386-387 [1901]; cf. Harris v Oakley, 130 NY 1, 5 [1891]; Wood v Lafayette, 46 NY 484, 488 [1871]).

2013Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contention, an unknown or disputed boundary line and an agreement between adjoining owners fixing the true boundary line are not required elements for the doctrine of practical location to apply (see Katz v Kaiser, 154 NY at 298-299 ; Sherman v Kane, 86 NY 57, 73 [1881]; Baldwin v Brown, 16 NY at 362-364 ; Bell v Hayes, 60 App Div 382, 386-387 [1901]; cf. Harris v Oakley, 130 NY 1, 5 [1891]; Wood v Lafayette, 46 NY 484, 488 [1871]).

2013Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contention, an unknown or disputed boundary line and an agreement between adjoining owners fixing the true boundary line are not required elements for the doctrine of practical location to apply (see Katz v Kaiser, 154 NY at 298-299 ; Sherman v Kane, 86 NY 57, 73 [1881]; Baldwin v Brown, 16 NY at 362-364 ; Bell v Hayes, 60 App Div 382, 386-387 [1901]; cf. Harris v Oakley, 130 NY 1, 5 [1891]; Wood v Lafayette, 46 NY 484, 488 [1871]).

2013Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contention, an unknown or disputed boundary line and an agreement between adjoining owners fixing the true boundary line are not required elements for the doctrine of practical location to apply (see Katz v Kaiser, 154 NY at 298-299 ; Sherman v Kane, 86 NY 57, 73 [1881]; Baldwin v Brown, 16 NY at 362-364 ; Bell v Hayes, 60 App Div 382, 386-387 [1901]; cf. Harris v Oakley, 130 NY 1, 5 [1891]; Wood v Lafayette, 46 NY 484, 488 [1871]).

2013Here, in opposition to the plaintiffs’ prima facie showing of the location of the recorded boundary line, the defendant submitted evidence raising a triable issue of fact as to whether the parties’ predecessors-in-interest mutually acquiesced to the hedgerow and chain-link fence as the boundary line for a period of more than 10 years (see Rautenstrauch v Bakhru, 93 AD3d 836 [2012]; cf. Robert v Shaul, 62 AD3d at 1128-1129 ; Hadix v Schmelzer, 186 AD2d 239, 240 [1992]).

2013Here, in opposition to the plaintiffs’ prima facie showing of the location of the recorded boundary line, the defendant submitted evidence raising a triable issue of fact as to whether the parties’ predecessors-in-interest mutually acquiesced to the hedgerow and chain-link fence as the boundary line for a period of more than 10 years (see Rautenstrauch v Bakhru, 93 AD3d 836 [2012]; cf. Robert v Shaul, 62 AD3d at 1128-1129 ; Hadix v Schmelzer, 186 AD2d 239, 240 [1992]).

2025"CPLR 1001 'limit[s] the scope of indispensable parties to those cases and only those cases where the determination of the court will adversely affect the rights of nonparties'" ( Blatt v Johar , 177 AD3d 634, 635, quoting Matter of Castaways Motel v Schuyler , 24 NY2d 120, 125).

2025"CPLR 1001 'limit[s] the scope of indispensable parties to those cases and only those cases where the determination of the court will adversely affect the rights of nonparties'" ( Blatt v Johar , 177 AD3d 634, 635, quoting Matter of Castaways Motel v Schuyler , 24 NY2d 120, 125).

2016Next, contrary to plaintiff’s claim, defendant laid a proper foundation for the aerial photographs submitted upon his motion, by establishing that the photographs were a fair and accurate representation of the parcels (see People v Patterson, 93 NY2d 80, 84 [1999]; Matter of Barner v Alexander, 55 AD3d 1182, 1183 [2008]).

2016Next, contrary to plaintiff’s claim, defendant laid a proper foundation for the aerial photographs submitted upon his motion, by establishing that the photographs were a fair and accurate representation of the parcels (see People v Patterson, 93 NY2d 80, 84 [1999]; Matter of Barner v Alexander, 55 AD3d 1182, 1183 [2008]).

2016Under this doctrine, “the practical location of a boundary line and an acquiescence of the parties therein for a period of more than the statutory period governing adverse possession is conclusive of the location of the boundary line” (Kaneb v Lamay, 58 AD3d 1097, 1098 [2009] [internal quotation marks, brackets and citation omitted], lv denied 12 NY3d 709 [2009]; see Katz v Kaiser, 154 NY 294, 298 [1897]; Gibbs v Porath, 121 AD3d 1210, 1212-1213 [2014]).

2016Accordingly, we find no error in the court’s holding that the boundary line between the parcels was established by the doctrine of practical location (see Gibbs v Porath, 121 AD3d at 1213-1214 ; Hazen v Hazen, 26 AD3d 696, 697-698 [2006]; compare Kennedy v Nimons, 121 AD3d 1229, 1232 [2014]).

2009Turning to the merits, “[i]t is well settled that ‘the practical location of a boundary line and an acquiescence of the parties therein for a period of more than [the statutory period governing adverse possession] is conclusive of the location of the boundary line’ ” (Kaneb v Lamay, 58 AD3d 1097, 1098 [2009], quoting Wentworth v Braun, 78 App Div 634, 635 [1903], affd 175 NY 515 [1903]).

2009Initially, we do not find that the appeal is rendered moot by the fact that defendants have removed the original fence and replaced it with one that is located on the boundary line described in the deeds, since the underlying controversy remains whether plaintiffs acquired title to the disputed parcel under the doctrine of practical location (see Dalton v Pataki, 5 NY3d 243, 267 [2005], cert denied 546 US 1032 [2005]).

2006Moreover, Supreme Coúrt’s conclusion, that the fence represents the boundary between the two farms, is required by the application of the doctrine of practical location (see Markowski v Ferrari, 174 AD2d 793, 794-795 [1991], appeal dismissed 78 NY2d 1061 [1991]).

2003Plaintiff is unable to demonstrate, under the doctrine of practical location, that the parties have mutually agreed upon a new location of a previously disputed property demarcation line, or that plaintiff adversely possesses a portion of defendants’ property in defiance of defendants’ understanding of the boundary (see Lewis v Berleue, 48 AD2d 716 [1975]; Adams v Warner, 209 App Div 394, 397-399 [1924]).