Kennelty-Cohen v. Henry

Summary

The plaintiffs sought to establish title to a strip of land by adverse possession or, alternatively, an easement by prescription. The Appellate Division affirmed summary judgment for the defendants, holding that the plaintiffs’ use was not sufficiently exclusive, hostile, or under a claim of right to support either theory. The matter was remitted for entry of a declaratory judgment in favor of the defendants.

Holdings

1. Plaintiffs did not establish the elements necessary to acquire title to the strip by adverse possession under the law in effect when the action commenced, and defendants were entitled to summary judgment dismissing that claim.
2. Plaintiffs did not acquire a prescriptive easement because their use of the strip was not hostile to defendants' use, and defendants were entitled to summary judgment dismissing that claim.
3. Because the action was partly one for declaratory judgment, the matter had to be remitted to Supreme Court for entry of a judgment declaring that plaintiffs did not own the strip by adverse possession and did not acquire a prescriptive easement.

Questions Presented

1. Whether defendants established entitlement to summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs' claim of adverse possession.
2. Whether defendants established entitlement to summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs' claim of a prescriptive easement.
3. Whether the matter had to be remitted for entry of a declaratory judgment because the action sought declaratory relief.

Disposition

affirmed