## Facts

- The dispute involved two one-acre parcels in Selden, New York, known as Miceli East and Miceli West.
- The plaintiff claimed ownership of Miceli East under a deed dated April 6, 1951, recorded March 31, 1955, and paid taxes on the parcel.
- Defendants claimed through a later deed from the same grantors to Selden Land Corporation dated June 7, 1955, recorded August 8, 1955, followed by conveyances to individual homeowners.
- Homeowners, acting in good faith under color of title, constructed homes and made substantial improvements that encroached on Miceli East; the plaintiff asserted she did not learn of the encroachments until after construction.
- Defendants asserted adverse possession, but the land was not cultivated, improved, or enclosed by defendants before 1969.
- As to Miceli West, the plaintiff sought damages based on alleged interference with ingress/egress and an alleged easement to the south; ownership of Miceli West itself was not disputed.
- The trial court found plaintiff owned Miceli East and that homes encroached, but conditioned relief by giving plaintiff an option either to sell to the homeowners or to take possession; it dismissed the Miceli West damages claims for lack of proof and adequate access.
- Both sides appealed; during the appeal, plaintiff died and her executrix was substituted.

## Issues

1. Whether a court may condition an innocent record owner’s right to possession in ejectment on accommodating good-faith encroachers who made substantial improvements.
2. Whether defendants acquired title to Miceli East by adverse possession.
3. Whether the plaintiff could recover damages relating to Miceli West based on alleged denial of ingress/egress or infringement of an easement without proof of a southern easement or lack of access.
4. Whether requests to declare deeds and mortgages null and void convert an ejectment action into an equitable action rather than an action at law with incidental equitable relief.

## Decision

- The Appellate Division modified the judgment to grant the plaintiff’s executrix unconditional possession of Miceli East and otherwise affirmed.
- The court held plaintiff established superior title and the right to possession of Miceli East based on her prior recorded deed and proof locating the parcel with sufficient certainty.
- The court rejected adverse possession because defendants’ occupancy was not of the character required by statute during the relevant period.
- The court affirmed dismissal of the Miceli West damages claims because there was adequate ingress and egress and no proven ownership of, or easement over, lands south of the parcels.
- The court held the action remained an ejectment action at law; claims to void deeds and mortgages were incidental to clearing title.
- The court indicated that substantial improvements affected the availability of monetary damages, and that improvements could be considered in offsetting damages, but did not justify denying unconditional possession.

## Legal Principles

- In ejectment, an owner with prior recorded title, compliance with notice requirements, and no inequitable conduct is entitled to possession as a legal right; equity may not compel the owner to accommodate a good-faith trespasser solely because the trespasser would suffer hardship.
- Good-faith improvements and reliance under color of title do not, by themselves, defeat an innocent record owner’s right to possession where title is otherwise proved.
- Adverse possession requires statutorily sufficient acts of occupation (such as cultivation, improvement, or enclosure) for the requisite period; inadequate use will not divest record title.
- A plaintiff seeking damages for interference with access or an easement must prove the claimed easement or ownership interest and actual lack of adequate ingress/egress.
- Requests to declare competing deeds and mortgages void can be incidental relief in ejectment and do not transform the case from an action at law into an equitable action.

## Conclusion

The court held that clear, prior recorded title controls in ejectment when the owner is innocent of inequitable conduct, granting unconditional possession despite the hardship to good-faith homeowners whose residences encroached on the land, while affirming dismissal of separate access and easement-based damages claims for lack of proof.


Miceli v. Riley, 79 A.D.2d 165, 436 N.Y.S.2d 72 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep’t 1981)