Guariglia v. Blima Homes, Inc., 89 N.Y.2d 852 (1996)

To establish title by adverse possession, the claimant’s possession must be hostile and under a claim of right; permissive use, even if prolonged, defeats such a claim.

Summary

The plaintiffs, the Guariglias, sought to establish legal title to a strip of land adjoining their property through adverse possession. The defendant, Blima Homes, Inc., held the record title to the land. The Court of Appeals held that the Guariglias’ claim failed because their use of the land was initially permissive, stemming from an agreement concerning the acquisition of the adjoining parcel. This permissive use negated the element of hostility required for adverse possession. The court emphasized that while a predecessor’s adverse possession could overcome this, the plaintiffs failed to provide sufficient proof of such prior adverse use.

Facts

The Guariglias acquired their property in 1977. They claimed adverse possession over a 10-foot by 40-foot strip of land bordering their property on the west. Blima Homes, Inc. had held legal title to the entire adjoining parcel since 1984. In 1982, Concetta Guariglia entered into an agreement regarding the acquisition of the westerly adjoining parcel (now owned by Blima) from the State of New York.

Procedural History

The plaintiffs brought an action to establish title by adverse possession. The lower court granted summary judgment dismissing their cause of action against Blima Homes, Inc. The Appellate Division affirmed this decision. The plaintiffs appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

Whether the plaintiffs established adverse possession of the disputed strip of land, considering their permissive use stemming from the 1982 agreement.

Holding

No, because the plaintiffs’ initial use of the disputed strip was permissive, not hostile, due to the 1982 agreement acknowledging ownership by others, and they failed to adequately prove adverse possession by their predecessors in interest.

Court’s Reasoning

The court began by stating that Blima Homes, Inc., as the record holder of legal title, was presumed to be in possession of the disputed strip, and the Guariglias’ occupancy was presumed to be subordinate, not hostile. The court highlighted the significance of the 1982 agreement, stating it “constituted an acknowledgement that actual ownership rested in others.” The court reasoned that this acknowledgement negated the “essential element” of hostility necessary for an adverse possession claim. The court cited Van Gorder v. Masterplanned, Inc., 78 N.Y.2d 1106, 1108, reinforcing this principle. The court acknowledged that the effect of this acknowledgement could be overcome by demonstrating that the plaintiffs’ predecessors had adversely possessed the strip for the statutory period. However, the plaintiffs “failed to submit proof in admissible form to substantiate that contention.” The court cited Di Leo v. Pecksto Holding Corp., 304 N.Y. 505, 514, and City of Tonawanda v. Ellicott Cr. Homeowners Assn., 86 A.D.2d 118, 124, to support the principle of tacking a predecessor’s adverse possession. The court found no admissible evidence to support tacking. Therefore, the court affirmed the dismissal of the adverse possession claim.