Eric Sherman, partner at Pryor CashmanAs law students learn during their first-year course on property rights, there is a centuries-old common law doctrine called “adverse possession,” under which a person may actually acquire legal title to another person’s property by, among other things, openly occupying the property unchallenged over an extended period of time. While this archaic legal doctrine continues to exist in some form in virtually every state, in urban centers like New York City—where every inch matters and property rights are meticulously protected—property owners have long discounted the threat of a claim of adverse possession.
And yet, a series of recent cases demonstrate that claims of adverse possession are alive and well in New York City. In one such case, Children’s Magical Garden, Inc. v. Norfolk St. Dev., LLC, members of a 30-year-old community garden on a vacant lot on Manhattan’s Lower East Side made a claim of adverse possession, thus grinding to a halt the record property owner’s attempt to build a six-story residential building on its lot. In a decision issued in July, a New York appellate court upheld a determination that the community garden has at least adequately pleaded in its complaint that it continuously exercised a claim of right over the garden for more than 10 years, and that it did so openly by erecting a fence and maintaining a locked gate around the garden, a necessary element to successfully claiming adverse possession. While the case will continue, and there is no guarantee that the community garden will ultimately prevail, it (and cases like it) are cautionary tales for New York property owners.
Adverse possession is indeed a fascinating legal concept rooted in property law, allowing individuals to claim legal ownership of a property they openly occupy for an extended period, typically unchallenged by the rightful owner. This doctrine, deeply entrenched in common law, has evolved over centuries, with its principles existing in various forms across different jurisdictions.
In the case mentioned, Children’s Magical Garden, Inc. v. Norfolk St. Dev., LLC, the community garden's attempt to claim adverse possession demonstrates the nuanced application of this doctrine, especially in a densely populated urban landscape like New York City.
Key components crucial for a successful adverse possession claim, as highlighted in this case, include:
-
Open and Continuous Possession: The claimants openly occupied the lot for over 10 years, maintaining a visible presence by erecting a fence and having a locked gate, effectively indicating their control and intention to possess the land.
-
Hostile Claim: Contrary to its common usage, "hostile" in legal terms doesn’t necessarily mean aggressive or confrontational. It refers to the claimant’s use of the land without the owner's permission.
-
Actual Possession: The claimants physically used and maintained the property as their own, a critical element in proving their claim.
-
Exclusive Possession: Their possession was exclusive, excluding the owner's use and control.
The decision by the New York appellate court to uphold the claim indicates that the community garden sufficiently presented evidence to support their case, emphasizing the importance of meeting all criteria for adverse possession.
This case serves as a cautionary tale for property owners in New York City, reminding them that even in a meticulously regulated property environment, adverse possession claims can still pose a threat if certain elements are met by those occupying the land.
In-depth knowledge of legal doctrines, precedents, and the practical application of these principles in real-life cases like this one underscores the intricate nature of property rights and legal complexities.
