Junkyard wars: The legal edition
12049 F* A* Corp. v R* C* of K*, centered on a dispute over ownership of a parcel of land through adverse possession.
The plaintiff, 12049 F* A* Corp., filed the case back in 2017 seeking a declaratory judgment that it had acquired title to a portion of land situated on the defendants’ adjacent property.
After a nonjury trial, the Kings County Supreme Court dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint and granted the defendants’ counterclaim. The court declared that the plaintiff had not adversely acquired ownership of the disputed parcel and that the defendants remained the rightful owners.
On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, noted its authority to independently assess the facts of a nonjury trial, while also recognizing the trial court’s superior position in evaluating witness credibility. The appellate court also reiterated that a showing of adverse possession requires clear and convincing evidence that the claimant’s possession was hostile, actual, open and notorious, exclusive, and continuous for the statutory period. The doctrine also allows for “tacking,” whereby a claimant may add the period of possession by a predecessor to their own to meet the statutory duration.
Based on its review of the record, the AD2 found that the plaintiff’s possession of the disputed parcel was not hostile. Evidence showed that the defendants had granted permission to the plaintiff’s tenant to use the parcel as part of a junkyard operation. This permissive use undermined the hostility requirement, which is essential to an adverse possession claim. The court cited precedent establishing that seeking or receiving permission from the record owner negates the hostile element.
Furthermore, the court applied the pre-2008 version of the Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL) article 5, which governed adverse possession claims prior to legislative amendments. Under this framework, the trial court’s conclusion that the plaintiff’s predecessor had not adversely possessed the property was supported by the evidence.
Clearly, the court saw through all the junk ...
# # #
DECISION