Summary
This Appellate Division decision reviews a trial court's denial of a defendant's motion to dismiss a complaint seeking a declaratory judgment of adverse possession and an injunction. The appellate court reversed the lower court's order, granting the motion because the defendant's evidentiary submissions conclusively negated the exclusivity element required for adverse possession. Consequently, the matter was remitted for entry of a judgment declaring that the plaintiffs did not acquire ownership of the subject property by adverse possession.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether, on a CPLR 3211(a)(7) motion to dismiss, the court must accept the plaintiff’s factual allegations and determine if they fit a cognizable legal theory
- Whether the plaintiffs satisfied the exclusivity element required for a claim of adverse possession
Holdings
- The court must liberally construe the complaint, accept all alleged facts as true, give the plaintiff the benefit of every favorable inference, and decide only whether the facts fit within any cognizable legal theory; the motion is granted only if a material fact is shown not to exist and no significant dispute exists.
- The plaintiffs failed to establish the exclusivity element; therefore the motion to dismiss the adverse‑possession claim is granted and the judgment must be entered in favor of the defendant.
Key quotations
“On a motion to dismiss a complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), the court must liberally construe the complaint, accept all facts as alleged in the pleading to be true, accord the plaintiff the benefit of every favorable inference, and determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory.” (849)
“To establish a claim of adverse possession, the occupation of the property must be (1) hostile and under a claim of right, (2) actual, (3) open and notorious, (4) exclusive, and (5) continuous for the statutory period.” (1081)
Factual background
The plaintiffs sued for a declaration that they owned certain real property by adverse possession and for an injunction to prevent the defendant from transferring the property. The defendant moved to dismiss the complaint under CPLR 3211(a)(7). The trial court denied the motion, prompting the appeal.
Procedural history
Plaintiffs filed an action asserting adverse possession and an injunction. Defendant moved to dismiss under CPLR 3211(a)(7). The Supreme Court, Suffolk County denied the motion. Defendant appealed the denial.
Remand instructions
Remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for entry of a judgment declaring the plaintiffs are not the owners of the subject real property by adverse possession.