adverse claim in New York

2025"The requisite character of the acts of improvement sufficient to supply the record owner with notice of an adverse claim will vary with 'the nature and situation of the property and the uses to which it can be applied' . . . and must 'consist of acts such as are usual in the ordinary cultivation and improvement of similar lands by thrifty owners' " ( Ray , 88 NY2d at 160 ).

2021"The requisite character of the acts of improvement sufficient to supply the record owner with notice of an adverse claim will vary with 'the nature and situation of the property and the uses to which it can be applied' . . . and must 'consist of acts such as are usual in the ordinary cultivation and improvement of similar lands by thrifty owners' " ( Ray , 88 NY2d at 160 ; see West v Hogan , 88 AD3d 1247 , 1248 [4th Dept 2011], affd 19 NY3d 1073 [2012]).

2025"The purpose of the hostility requirement is to provide the title owner notice of the adverse claim through the 'unequivocal acts of the usurper'" ( Bratone v Conforti-Brown , 150 AD3d 1068, 1070 [2d Dept 2017], quoting Monnot , 207 NY at 245, lv denied 31 NY3d 902 [2018]).

2025"The purpose of the hostility requirement is to provide the title owner notice of the adverse claim through the 'unequivocal acts of the usurper'" ( Bratone v Conforti-Brown , 150 AD3d 1068, 1070 [2d Dept 2017], quoting Monnot , 207 NY at 245, lv denied 31 NY3d 902 [2018]).

2025"The purpose of the hostility requirement is to provide the title owner notice of the adverse claim through the 'unequivocal acts of the usurper'" ( Bratone v Conforti-Brown , 150 AD3d 1068, 1070 [2d Dept 2017], quoting Monnot , 207 NY at 245, lv denied 31 NY3d 902 [2018]).

2025"The purpose of the hostility requirement is to provide the title owner notice of the adverse claim through the 'unequivocal acts of the usurper'" ( Bratone v Conforti-Brown , 150 AD3d 1068, 1070 [2d Dept 2017], quoting Monnot , 207 NY at 245, lv denied 31 NY3d 902 [2018]).

2020The purpose of the hostility requirement is to provide the title owner notice of the adverse claim through the "unequivocal acts of the usurper" ( Monnot v Murphy , 207 NY 240, 245 ; see Walling v Przybylo , 7 NY3d at 232 ; Estate of Clanton v City of New York , 153 AD3d at 789 ).

2018The purpose of the hostility requirement is to provide the title owner notice of the adverse claim through the "unequivocal acts of the usurper" ( Monnot v Murphy , 207 NY 240, 245 ; see Walling v Przybylo , 7 NY3d at 232 ; Estate of Clanton v City of New York , 153 AD3d at 789 ).

2017The purpose of the hostility requirement is to provide the title owner notice of the adverse claim through the “unequivocal acts of the usurper” (Monnot v Murphy, 207 NY 240, 245 [1913]; see Walling v Przybylo, 7 NY3d at 232 ; Hall v Sinclaire, 35 AD3d 660, 662 [2006]).

2017The purpose of the hostility requirement is to provide the title owner notice of the adverse claim through the “unequivocal acts of the usurper” (Monnot v Murphy, 207 NY 240, 245 [1913]; see Walling v Przybylo, 7 NY3d at 232 ; Bratone v Conforti-Brown, 79 AD3d at 957 ; Hall v Sinclaire, 35 AD3d 660, 662 [2006]).

2022The respondents established, prima facie, that the defendants' possession of the disputed property was actual, open and notorious, exclusive, and continuous for the statutory period of 10 years ( see Estate of Becker v Murtagh , 19 NY3d at 81 ; Megalli v Yeager , 167 AD3d at 862).

2022Thus, where the possessor, for example, seeks "permission for use from the record owner" ( Estate of Becker v Murtagh , 19 NY3d at 82 [internal quotation marks omitted]), offers to purchase the disputed property from the owner ( see Larsen v Hanson , 58 AD3d at 1004-1005 ), or orally concedes to the owner that title rests with the owner ( see Van Gorder v Masterplanned, Inc. , 78 NY2d 1106, 1107-1108 , revg 161 AD2d 920 ), the owner is no longer on notice of an adverse claim against his or her land and the element of hostility is negated.

2012UCC 8-105 (a) (2) defines notice of an adverse claim as awareness “of facts sufficient to indicate that there is a significant probability that the adverse claim exists” and deliberate avoidance of “information that would establish the existence of the adverse claim.” In S.E.C. v Credit Bancorp, Ltd. ( 386 F3d 438 , 448 [2004]), the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit described this as the “willful blindness” test, which “does not impose a duty of inquiry or due diligence absent circumstances giving rise to a reasonable suspicion.” The United States Supreme Court has describe

2012UCC 8-105 (a) (2) defines notice of an adverse claim as awareness “of facts sufficient to indicate that there is a significant probability that the adverse claim exists” and deliberate avoidance of “information that would establish the existence of the adverse claim.” In S.E.C. v Credit Bancorp, Ltd. ( 386 F3d 438 , 448 [2004]), the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit described this as the “willful blindness” test, which “does not impose a duty of inquiry or due diligence absent circumstances giving rise to a reasonable suspicion.” The United States Supreme Court has describe

2011By contrast, since “the enjoyment of easements lies in use rather than in possession” (Di Leo v Pecksto Holding Corp., 304 NY 505, 511 [1952] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]), an adverse claim to an easement may be supported solely by seasonal use or presence (see Ray v Beacon Hudson Mtn.

1996By their nature, regular cultivation, improvement and inclosure of another’s land constitute open and notorious acts of possession that would place record owners on notice of an adverse claim to the property (Di Leo v Pecksto Holding Corp., 304 NY 505, 512, n 1 ).

2024Where the possessor "concedes to the owner that title rests with the owner, the owner is no longer on notice of an adverse claim against his or her land and the element of hostility is negated" ( Salzberg v Sena , 204 AD3d at 857 [citation omitted]; see Van Gorder v Masterplanned, Inc. , 78 NY2d 1106, 1107-1108 ["acknowledgement during the statutory 10-year period that actual ownership of the property rested with defendant . . . would negate an essential element of plaintiffs' adverse possession claim"]).

2022Thus, where the possessor, for example, seeks "permission for use from the record owner" ( Estate of Becker v Murtagh , 19 NY3d at 82 [internal quotation marks omitted]), offers to purchase the disputed property from the owner ( see Larsen v Hanson , 58 AD3d at 1004-1005 ), or orally concedes to the owner that title rests with the owner ( see Van Gorder v Masterplanned, Inc. , 78 NY2d 1106, 1107-1108 , revg 161 AD2d 920 ), the owner is no longer on notice of an adverse claim against his or her land and the element of hostility is negated.

2019Based on the foregoing, and given the nature of the unique lake bottom property at issue, we find that the cultivation and use of the claimed area by plaintiff and its predecessors-in-interest was consistent with the nature and practical use that any other owner would make of such property and was sufficiently open, notorious and continuous to put the record owner on notice of the adverse claim ( see Robinson v Robinson , 34 AD3d at 977-978 ; Gorman v Hess , 301 AD2d 683, 684-685 [2003]).

2010Corp., 88 NY2d 154, 160 [1996] [citation omitted]; see Robinson v Robinson, 34 AD3d 975, 976 [2006]).

2025Here, not only did plaintiff pave and maintain the entirety of the road, it is undisputed that plaintiff also maintained the area to the east of the road by mowing the grass and trimming the trees and brush to prevent limbs from hanging over that side of the road ( see West Middlebury Baptist Church v Koester , 50 AD3d 1494, 1495 [4th Dept 2008]; Golden Hammer Auto Body Corp. v Consolidated Rail Corp. , 151 AD2d 545, 546 [2d Dept 1989]).

2025Here, not only did plaintiff pave and maintain the entirety of the road, it is undisputed that plaintiff also maintained the area to the east of the road by mowing the grass and trimming the trees and brush to prevent limbs from hanging over that side of the road ( see West Middlebury Baptist Church v Koester , 50 AD3d 1494, 1495 [4th Dept 2008]; Golden Hammer Auto Body Corp. v Consolidated Rail Corp. , 151 AD2d 545, 546 [2d Dept 1989]).

2025The 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]).

2025The 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]).

2024Where the possessor "concedes to the owner that title rests with the owner, the owner is no longer on notice of an adverse claim against his or her land and the element of hostility is negated" ( Salzberg v Sena , 204 AD3d at 857 [citation omitted]; see Van Gorder v Masterplanned, Inc. , 78 NY2d 1106, 1107-1108 ["acknowledgement during the statutory 10-year period that actual ownership of the property rested with defendant . . . would negate an essential element of plaintiffs' adverse possession claim"]).

2023However, we agree with Supreme Court that plaintiffs' submissions raise numerous issues of fact, including whether the alleged possession by way of planting ground cover, composting natural materials, placing flat stone pavers in a wooded area and storing a trailer seasonally near the boundary of Lots 1 and 6 was "such that they would place the record owner on notice of an adverse claim" ( Backus v Lyme Adirondack Timberlands II, LLC , 144 AD3d 1454, 1456 [3d Dept 2016] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]).

2022Thus, where the possessor, for example, seeks "permission for use from the record owner" ( Estate of Becker v Murtagh , 19 NY3d at 82 [internal quotation marks omitted]), offers to purchase the disputed property from the owner ( see Larsen v Hanson , 58 AD3d at 1004-1005 ), or orally concedes to the owner that title rests with the owner ( see Van Gorder v Masterplanned, Inc. , 78 NY2d 1106, 1107-1108 , revg 161 AD2d 920 ), the owner is no longer on notice of an adverse claim against his or her land and the element of hostility is negated.

2022"To be distinguished from the possessor's subjective knowledge that another holds title, the possessor's overt acknowledgment of title in another negates the element of hostility because it undermines notice to the owner that another is possessing the land under claim of title" ( Larsen v Hanson , 58 AD3d 1003, 1004 [internal quotation marks omitted]).

2021"The requisite character of the acts of improvement sufficient to supply the record owner with notice of an adverse claim will vary with 'the nature and situation of the property and the uses to which it can be applied' . . . and must 'consist of acts such as are usual in the ordinary cultivation and improvement of similar lands by thrifty owners' " ( Ray , 88 NY2d at 160 ; see West v Hogan , 88 AD3d 1247 , 1248 [4th Dept 2011], affd 19 NY3d 1073 [2012]).

2021"The requisite character of the acts of improvement sufficient to supply the record owner with notice of an adverse claim will vary with 'the nature and situation of the property and the uses to which it can be applied' . . . and must 'consist of acts such as are usual in the ordinary cultivation and improvement of similar lands by thrifty owners' " ( Ray , 88 NY2d at 160 ; see West v Hogan , 88 AD3d 1247 , 1248 [4th Dept 2011], affd 19 NY3d 1073 [2012]).