Asher v. Borenstein
| Decision Date | 21 September 2010 |
| Citation | 76 A.D.3d 984,908 N.Y.S.2d 90 |
| Parties | Gail ASHER, respondent, v. Maurice BORENSTEIN, et al., appellants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
76 A.D.3d 984
Gail ASHER, respondent,
v.
Maurice BORENSTEIN, et al., appellants.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Sept. 21, 2010.
William A. DiConza, Oyster Bay, N.Y., for appellants.
Baram & Kaiser, Garden City, N.Y. (David Baram of counsel), for respondent.
JOSEPH COVELLO, J.P., FRED T. SANTUCCI, RUTH C. BALKIN, and LEONARD B. AUSTIN, JJ.
In an action, inter alia, pursuant to RPAPL article 15 to compel the determination of claims to certain real property, and for a judgment declaring that the plaintiff is the owner of the subject property by adverse possession, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Phelan, J.), dated July 27, 2009, which granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment declaring that the plaintiff is the owner of the subject property by adverse possession, and denied their cross motion for summary judgment declaring them to be the owners of the subject property.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiff and the defendants are neighbors in Lido Beach, New York. The plaintiff and her husband purchased their property in 1983. At the time, there was a fence separating what the plaintiff believed to be the western border of her property from the neighboring property subsequently purchased in 1996 by the defendants. In 1986, the plaintiff replaced the preexisting fence with a new one. In September 2005 the plaintiff and her husband transferred title to their property solely to the plaintiff.
At the time that the defendants purchased their property in 1996, they received a survey of their property which revealed that the subject fence was situated three feet within their property. When deposed, the defendant Maurice Borenstein stated that in 1996, he approached the plaintiff's husband with a copy of the
In March 2008 the plaintiff commenced this action pursuant to RPAPL article 15 to quiet title to the disputed section of land. In an affidavit submitted in support of her motion, the plaintiff maintained that, in addition to the fence enclosing the subject portion of land, she also installed a wooden walkway on that parcel, planted trees and shrubs which were...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Montanaro v. Rudchyk
...continuous for the required period (see Estate of Clanton v. City of New York, 153 A.D.3d at 789, 60 N.Y.S.3d 362 ; Asher v. Borenstein, 76 A.D.3d 984, 986, 908 N.Y.S.2d 90 ). Additionally, under the relevant provision of RPAPL 522 that was in effect at the time of the events during which t......
-
Kelly v. Bastianic
...684 N.Y.S.2d 571). Additionally, under the law as it existed when the plaintiffs commenced this action ( see Asher v. Borenstein, 76 A.D.3d 984, 986, 908 N.Y.S.2d 90; see also L. 2008, ch. 269), “actual knowledge that another person is the title owner does not, in and of itself, defeat a cl......
-
Estate of Clanton v. City of N.Y., 2016-01500. Index No. 41406/07.
...Hogan v. Kelly, 86 A.D.3d 590, 927 N.Y.S.2d 157 ; Bratone v. Conforti–Brown, 79 A.D.3d 955, 957, 913 N.Y.S.2d 762 ; Asher v. Borenstein, 76 A.D.3d 984, 986, 908 N.Y.S.2d 90 ; Gourdine v. Village of Ossining, 72 A.D.3d 643, 897 N.Y.S.2d 647 ). The purpose of the hostility requirement is to p......
-
SLC Coram, LLC v. 543 Middle Country Rd. Realty, LLC
...Hogan v. Kelly, 86 A.D.3d 590, 927 N.Y.S.2d 157 ; Bratone v. Conforti–Brown, 79 A.D.3d 955, 957, 913 N.Y.S.2d 762 ; Asher v. Borenstein, 76 A.D.3d 984, 986, 908 N.Y.S.2d 90 ; Gourdine v. Village of Ossining, 72 A.D.3d 643, 897 N.Y.S.2d 647 ). While adverse possession is not a favored method......