Category Archives: Real Estate

Had Title to Enclosed Realty Been Acquired by Adverse Possession?.

Hongwei Guan and EZC Carolina LLC owned their two residences on adjoining parcels in the City of Ithaca, Tompkins County. In 2006, Guan became the titled owners of the western parcel and began using a shed that was fully located to the east of their boundary line. In 2021, EZC  became the titled owner of the eastern parcel and subsequently constructed a fence along the boundary line — resultantly enclosing the shed within EZC’s parcel.

Guan commenced an action seeking, among other things, to permanently enjoin EZC from maintaining the fence that prevented access to the shed, claiming to be the fee owner of the disputed area through adverse possession. After issue was joined and before the completion of discovery, Guan moved for partial summary judgment on the cause of action for a permanent injunction, which was opposed by EZC.  Supreme Court denied the motion in its entirety. Guan appealed.

Appeals Followed Small Claims Judgment In Favor of Neighbors

Silvio Bet commenced a small claims action seeking $112.50 each from Wayne Geriak Elizabeth Manning as their pro rata shares of a $450 plowing expense for a shared private roadway. After a trial, the Justice Court of the Town of Lake Pleasant found in favor of  Geriak and Manning because there was no prior agreement between the parties to share plowing costs for the driveway. Bet appealed. County Court affirmed.  Bet appealed to the Appellate Division..

Appellate review of small claims matters is limited to determining whether ‘substantial justice has been done between the parties according to the rules and principles of substantive law. Only a clearly erroneous determination will be overturned.

Installer and Owner Sue Each Other for Damage

Amber Well Drilling, LLC sued Robert Diegelman for breach of contract and sought the unpaid balance for services in connection with the parties’ contract providing for the installation by Amber of a new well and pump system on Diegelman’s property. Diegelman answered and asserted a counterclaim alleging that the well was actually installed on his neighbors’ property and that, as a result, he was required to purchase the parcel containing the well from his neighbors. The counterclaim sought reimbursement for the money spent by Diegelman for the purchase of that parcel.

The evidence presented at the bench trial in this case established that, although Diegelman provided Amber with a survey of his property, the parties never met to discuss the exact location where the well would be installed, nor did the contract specify the exact location where the well would be installed. Diegelman made two payments to Amber for its services, but after purchasing the parcel containing the well from his neighbors, declined to make full payment to Amber. Following the bench trial, Supreme Court awarded Diegelman $1,456.00, which the court determined was the difference between the cost to him of buying the land where the well was installed, i.e., $6,975.00, and the amount due to Amber under the contract, i.e., $5,549.00. Amber appealed.