In Galli v. Galli, Peter Moulinos represented the Plaintiff who sought a judgment of adverse possession and to quiet title to a property previously held by his parents for more than twenty (20) years. The Plaintiff and his parents maintained and possessed the subject property continuously, exclusively, openly, notoriously and under a claim of right hostile to the ownership interest of the Defendant.
During the course of the litigation, the Defendant conceded that she never maintained the property, participated towards its expenses nor even visited the property. The Plaintiff also submitted an affidavit in support of his claim, as well as affidavits of other family members which stated that neither the Defendant, nor her deceased husband, ever made any claims to the property since 1960 and they “did not believe they were owners of the property having exercised no control, possession or claim to the property since 1960.” The Plaintiff also provided evidence of the extensive repairs, improvements and alterations made to the property since 1972 by he and his parents.
The Defendant argued that the Plaintiff did not have a “claim of right” to the property because the Defendant’s 25% interest in the subject property was never subject to an ouster. The Court did not agree with the Defendant and ruled that Plaintiff did not have to show ouster. All that Plaintiff was required to show was that his possession of the property was (1) hostile and under a claim of right, (2) actual, (3) open and notorious, (4) exclusive, and (5) continuous for the statutory period.
The ruling was significant as the Court was not required to deal with the application of the 2008 amendments to the adverse possession laws of New York given that adverse possession in the property vested in the Plaintiff prior to these amendments.
The case is cited as Galli v. Galli, 36 Misc. 3d 1203A, 2012 NY Slip Op 51182U (Sup.Ct. Kings Cty. 2012) and the ruling was issued by the Hon. Arthur M. Schack.