City of Tonawanda v. Ellicott Creek Homeowners Ass'n
1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15374, 86 A.D.2d 118, 449 N.Y.S.2d 116 (1982)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To establish title to municipally-owned property by adverse possession or easement by prescription, a claimant must satisfy all requisite elements, including actual occupation through usual cultivation or improvement, for the full statutory period. Such a claim can only be made against property held by the municipality in its proprietary capacity, not when it is held for a public or governmental purpose.
Facts:
- The City of Tonawanda (City) holds record title to a strip of property along Ellicott Creek.
- For years, numerous individuals, including homeowners living across the street (defendants) and boat owners, have used this city-owned property.
- Some defendants, the Branns and Eckerts, maintained the land by mowing the grass and planting trees.
- Defendant Maurer used and later replaced a dock on the property, erected a light pole, installed a retaining wall along the creek bank, and mowed the grass.
- Defendant Anderson also built a retaining wall, after inquiring with the City about the necessity of a building permit.
- Defendant Melick and the Eckerts at one point sought permission from the City to use the property.
- The City acquired the land in two main parcels: one in 1948 with no restrictions, and another in 1972 with a deed specifying it was for public or governmental use.
- In July 1976, the City's common council passed a resolution stating its intent to hold all of its creekfront property for public purposes and to remove all private users.
Procedural Posture:
- The City of Tonawanda commenced an action for ejectment against 41 defendants in the New York Supreme Court, Erie County, a trial court of first instance.
- The Ellicott Creek Homeowners Association and 24 individual defendants filed an answer asserting affirmative defenses and counterclaims for adverse possession and prescriptive easements.
- The City moved for summary judgment to dismiss these defenses and counterclaims.
- The trial court (Special Term) granted partial summary judgment for the City, dismissing the adverse possession claims but denying the motion as to the prescriptive easement claims.
- The City appealed and the defendants cross-appealed from the trial court's order to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do the defendants' various uses of city-owned creekfront property, such as mowing lawns, planting trees, and building docks, meet the statutory requirements for establishing title by adverse possession or a right of use by prescriptive easement against a municipality?
Opinions:
Majority - Denman, J.
No, for most defendants, their actions do not satisfy the requirements for adverse possession or prescriptive easement; however, for two defendants, their actions create triable issues of fact that preclude summary judgment. To establish adverse possession, a claimant must prove possession was hostile, actual, open, notorious, exclusive, and continuous for the statutory period. Most defendants failed to demonstrate continuous use for the required 10 or 15 years. The claims of defendants Brann and Eckert also fail because merely mowing grass and planting trees on property suitable for more extensive use does not constitute 'usual cultivation or improvement' as required by statute. In contrast, defendant Maurer’s actions—building a dock, a retaining wall, and erecting a light pole—are sufficient to raise a question of fact regarding usual cultivation. Finally, claims against municipal property are only valid if the property is held in a proprietary capacity. Here, questions of fact remain as to when the City effectively dedicated the land to public use, particularly whether it did so before some defendants' claims may have vested.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the standard for 'usual cultivation or improvement' required for adverse possession in New York, establishing that minimal maintenance like mowing a lawn is insufficient for property that could be used more extensively. It reinforces the critical distinction between property a municipality holds for governmental purposes (which is immune from adverse possession) and property held in a proprietary capacity (which is not). The decision highlights that a municipality's resolution to dedicate land to public use may not retroactively defeat a claim that has already vested after the statutory period has run. This creates a fact-intensive inquiry into the timing of both the claimant's actions and the municipality's dedication of the land.
