Caseflicks

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York • 1996

East 13th Street Homesteaders' Coalition v. Lower East Side Coalition Housing Development

230 A.D.2d 622 | 646 N.Y.S.2d 324 | 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8340

Full access

Unlock the video and quiz

The written brief is free to read below. Subscribe to watch the video explainer and take the quiz.

Create an account Log in

Takeaway

In short, this case shows that an adverse-possession claimant seeking interim protection must make a strong preliminary showing of ten years of actual, continuous possession; intermittent occupancy by successive people will not suffice without proof of privity permitting tacking.

Background

The petitioners occupied four City-owned buildings at 537, 539, 541, and 545 East 13th Street. The City had acquired title through in rem proceedings in 1977 and 1978. After the buildings became vacant and deteriorated, coalition members moved in, made improvements, and sought to preserve them. The City later planned to remove the occupants so it could rehabilitate the buildings under a federally subsidized low-income-housing plan.

The occupants sued, asserting that they had acquired title by adverse possession. Supreme Court, New York County, Judge Elliott Wilk, granted a preliminary injunction prohibiting the respondents from using self-help to remove them while the action was pending. The Appellate Division addressed the narrower question whether the occupants should remain protected from eviction pending trial on their adverse-possession claim.

Issues

Issue #1

Whether the occupants were entitled to a preliminary injunction preventing their eviction while their adverse-possession claim awaited trial.

Holding

No. The occupants did not establish a clear legal right to preliminary injunctive relief because they were unlikely to succeed on the merits of their adverse-possession claim.

Reasoning

A preliminary injunction requires the movant to show a likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable injury without relief, and equities favoring relief. Because an injunction is a drastic remedy, it is available only where the applicant demonstrates a clear legal right to it.

The dispositive requirement here was likelihood of success. The occupants claimed title by adverse possession, so they had to show by clear and convincing evidence that their possession was actual, open and notorious, exclusive, continuous, hostile, and under a claim of right for the statutory ten-year period.

Although loss of possession of their homes could constitute serious harm, the occupants' inability to show the required likelihood of success defeated their request. Respondents presented evidence that persuasively undermined the necessary continuity of possession, so the preliminary injunction had to be vacated.

Issue #2

Whether the occupants were likely to prove ten years of actual and continuous possession, including through tacking of successive occupants' possession, as required for adverse possession.

Holding

No. The evidence showed repeated interruptions in possession, and the occupants did not establish the privity required to tack the periods of unrelated successive occupants.

Reasoning

Because the occupants did not claim under a written instrument, New York law required actual rather than constructive possession for the full statutory period. They therefore had to demonstrate actual, continuous, open, and notorious possession of the buildings from 1984 through 1994.

The record contained documentary and photographic evidence that the City repeatedly sealed the buildings during the claimed period. Occupants later broke the seals, at times with a sledgehammer, to regain entry. Those events strongly indicated that the occupants' possession had been interrupted rather than continuously maintained for ten years.

The coalition's assertion that different members collectively maintained a chain of possession did not cure the problem. Successive periods of adverse possession may be tacked only if connected by an unbroken chain of privity, ordinarily reflecting an intended transfer of possession. Here, there was no evidence of privity or intended transfers between successive apartment occupants, and some apartments stood vacant before new occupants arrived with no contact with prior occupants.

The court distinguished Ray v. Beacon Hudson Mountain Corp. In Ray, the same claimant occupied and maintained a cottage for twenty-five years, with conduct suited to the property's seasonal and isolated character. This case instead involved intermittently occupied buildings and unrelated occupants whose possession could not be treated as one continuous ten-year period.

Dissents

Justice Kupferman

Reasoning

Justice Kupferman dissented, arguing that judge Kupferman would have affirmed the preliminary injunction. In his view, Ray v. Beacon Hudson Mountain Corp. teaches that continuity in an adverse-possession case depends not solely on uninterrupted physical presence, but also on acts of dominion and control appropriate to the property's character, condition, and location.

The occupants had made improvements and attempted to preserve the buildings in a severely deteriorated area resembling the ghost-town setting in Ray. Their intermittent residence, coupled with preservation efforts by members of a cohesive coalition, could support a finding of continuous actual possession even though particular individuals did not occupy the buildings at every moment.

The City had acquired the buildings but allowed them to become neighborhood hazards marked by drug activity, trash, and deterioration. Although the City's proposed rehabilitation might be desirable, Judge Kupferman believed the occupants should not be evicted before a definitive resolution of their potentially valid adverse-possession claim.