On January 5, 2023, the First Department issued a decision in Golobe v. Altchek, 2023 NY Slip Op. 00031, affirming a grant of ownership by adverse possession, explaining:
The motion court properly determined that plaintiff established by clear and convincing evidence that he actually, exclusively possessed the property under a claim of right, openly and notoriously, for a continuous period since 1992, entitling him to a declaration that he is the sole and exclusive owner of the premises and dismissal of defendant’s counterclaims. Where tenants in common are concerned, the period required by RPAPL 541 is 20 years of continuous exclusive possession before a cotenant may acquire full title by adverse possession. Even absent an ouster of the cotenant, the occupying cotenant still must demonstrate open and overt acts which unmistakably repudiate a non-possessory owner’s right by one possessing the property.
Here, plaintiff’s acts of exclusive ownership fulfill that criterion. Plaintiff’s claim of right arising from the administrator’s deed, which was recorded in the New York City Register’s Office on or about November 19, 1992, vested 20 years later, in 2012. Under that claim of right, plaintiff constructed an open and notorious wood deck and other observable improvements on the property, encumbered the property with a construction loan which he later satisfied, leased portions of the mixed-use building to third parties solely in plaintiff’s name, and there was no acknowledgement, by plaintiff or anyone else, of any other interest in the property for a period exceeding 20 years. This satisfies the hostility element, as a rebuttable presumption of hostility arises from possession accompanied by the usual acts of ownership.
Although defendant urges that plaintiff’s offer to settle their respective interests in the property in 2019 warranted denial of summary judgment, defendant’s reliance on Blanchard v Blanchard (4 Misc 3d 1027[A], 2004 NY Slip Op 51079[U] [Sup Ct, Bronx County 2004]) is misplaced. There, the parties were divorced parents, and the defendant husband seeking title to the marital home by adverse possession had raised the children in the former marital residence with plaintiff’s acquiescence. Thus, the court reasonably determined that the husband’s offer to purchase the wife’s share suggested that he may not have intended his occupancy to be hostile to her cotenancy. Here, by contrast, defendant submitted no evidence that plaintiff was even aware that defendant had an interest in the property as a tenant-in-common until 2018, when it was discovered that his uncle had not predeceased the aunt from whom he inherited the property, and the settlement overtures consistently asserted that plaintiff had always acted as the property’s sole owner for the statutory period.
(Internal quotations and citations omitted).