Summary
The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed an order granting summary judgment dismissing Marie L. Placide's claim that she acquired residential property by adverse possession. The court held that the defendant established that the plaintiff's possession was not continuous for the statutory period because the underlying agreement terminated and the plaintiff was later served with termination notices and subjected to holdover and ejectment proceedings. The matter was remitted for entry of a declaratory judgment that Placide was not the owner by adverse possession.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the defendant established as a matter of law that the plaintiff failed to continuously possess the premises for the statutory period required for adverse possession.
- Whether the plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact in opposition to the defendant's summary judgment motion.
- Whether the matter had to be remitted for entry of a declaratory judgment because the action sought declaratory relief.
- Whether portions of the respondent's brief referring to matter dehors the record should be stricken.
Holdings
- The defendant established prima facie that the plaintiff did not continuously possess the premises for the requisite statutory period because the agreement terminated in November 2001 and the record owner thereafter served a termination notice and commenced holdover and ejectment proceedings.
- The plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition to the defendant's motion.
- Because the action was in part for declaratory relief, the matter had to be remitted to Supreme Court for entry of a judgment declaring that the plaintiff was not the owner of the premises by adverse possession.
- The motion to strike was granted to the extent that five identified portions of the respondent's brief and an accompanying citation were stricken and not considered; the motion was otherwise denied.
Key quotations
“To establish a claim of adverse possession, the occupation of the property must be (1) hostile and under a claim of right (i.e., a reasonable basis for the belief that the subject property belongs to a particular party), (2) actual, (3) open and notorious, (4) exclusive, and (5) continuous for the statutory period” ([*1])
“The element of continuity will be defeated where the adverse possessor interrupts the period of possession by abandoning the premises, where an intruder's presence renders the possession nonexclusive, or where the record owner acts to eject the adverse possessor” ([*2])
Factual background
The plaintiff alleged that in November 1991 she entered into an agreement with the defendant's predecessor under which the premises would be conveyed to her after 120 monthly payments. The agreement terminated in November 2001. In March 2004, the defendant's predecessor served the plaintiff with a notice of nonrenewal and termination of tenancy and later commenced a holdover proceeding and ejectment action. The Appellate Division concluded that these events defeated the required continuity of the plaintiff's alleged adverse possession.
Procedural history
Marie L. Placide commenced an action in Supreme Court, Kings County, seeking, among other relief, a declaration under RPAPL article 15 that she owned residential property by adverse possession. The defendant answered with affirmative defenses and counterclaims, then moved for summary judgment. Supreme Court granted the motion, and the Appellate Division affirmed, remitting for entry of a declaratory judgment. In a separate decision and order on motion, the Appellate Division granted in part the plaintiff's motion to strike portions of the respondent's brief referring to matter dehors the record.
Remand instructions
Remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for entry of a judgment, inter alia, declaring that the plaintiff is not the owner of the premises by adverse possession.