Van Gorder v. Masterplanned, Inc.
Anita Van Gorder v. Masterplanned, Incorporated, Formerly Known as Muttontown Holding Corp.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs, and plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment denied.
Inasmuch as a triable issue of fact exists as to whether plaintiffs, who claim to have acquired title to defendant’s property by adverse possession, acknowledged during the stat *1108 utory 10-year period that actual ownership of the property rested with defendant, summary judgment should not have been awarded to plaintiffs. Such a concession, if found by the trier of fact to exist, would negate an essential element of plaintiffs’ adverse possession claim, namely, that they continued to possess the property under a claim of right throughout the statutory period (see, City of Tonawanda v Ellicott Cr. Homeowners Assn., 86 AD2d 118, 123 ; see also, Van Valkenburgh v Lutz, 304 NY 95, 99 ).
Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Titone, Hancock, Jr., and Bellacosa concur in memorandum.
Order reversed, etc.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 2 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(if claimant acknowledges superior title in record owner during statutory ten-year period, it negates an essential element of an adverse possession claim, i.e., possession with a claim of right throughout the time period)
Cited by 25 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.