Ray v. Beacon Hudson Mountain Corp.
210 A.D.2d 388 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1994
Facts
The plaintiffs, the Rays, claimed adverse possession of certain real property, which included a remote cabin. They asserted they went to the property every year. The typical season for using the property ran from Memorial Day until Columbus Day, approximately four months. However, the plaintiffs admitted that the majority of their visits were only for one month during this four-month season, making their use erratic and infrequent. While they had a telephone listing, electricity, and were registered to vote in the region, their actual presence on the premises was limited.
Procedural history
The plaintiffs initiated an action in the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, seeking a determination of their claim to certain real property by adverse possession. After a nonjury trial, the Supreme Court (Hillery, J.) entered a judgment on June 9, 1992, declaring the plaintiffs to be the owners of the subject property. The defendant, Beacon Hudson Mountain Corporation, appealed this judgment.
Issue
Can title to real property be established by adverse possession when the claimants' seasonal use of a remote cabin is erratic and limited to one month out of an approximately four-month season?
Holding
No, the plaintiffs cannot establish title by adverse possession because their use of the property was not continuous. The judgment of the Supreme Court is reversed, and it is declared that the plaintiffs have no right, title, or interest in the real property.
Rule
To establish title by adverse possession, the requirement of continuity of possession can be satisfied for seasonal activities by use of the land commensurate with and appropriate to existing seasonal uses, needs, requirements, and limitations, considering the location and adaptability of the land. Regular summertime use of a summer cottage is sufficient, but irregular or infrequent summertime use is not. Even seasonal use must be sufficient to give the true owner notice of the adverse claim. The requirement of continuous possession exists so that the true owner has an opportunity to discover and confront a hostile claim; constructive possession is insufficient without actual continuous presence.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener
Case brief last reviewed . Prepared by CaseReader from the published opinion.