## Facts

- A record owner held title to a roughly triangular parcel in Yonkers, New York, adjacent to neighboring lots occupied by the defendants.
- Over decades beginning in the early 1900s, the defendants used portions of the triangular parcel by clearing brush, cultivating a vegetable garden, and placing or maintaining structures and items on the land (including a shack, shed/chicken coop, and a garage partly encroaching).
- The defendants also used a traveled path across the parcel to access their garage from the street.
- The triangular parcel was not fully fenced or otherwise substantially enclosed, and parts remained uncleared and unimproved.
- After purchasing record title, the owner demanded removal of the structures and cessation of use; related litigation followed.
- In an earlier lawsuit about the path, the defendants sought a right of way and affirmatively admitted in pleadings that the owner was the parcel’s owner; the court granted a limited easement.
- In the later action, the owner sought to eject the defendants; the defendants countered that they had acquired title to the parcel (or much of it) by adverse possession without color of title.
- The trial court quieted title in the defendants as to a described portion; the intermediate appellate court largely affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether the defendants proved adverse possession without color of title by clear and convincing evidence of “actual occupation” for the statutory period, evidenced by a substantial enclosure or that the premises claimed were usually cultivated or improved.
2. Whether the defendants’ prior judicial admission that the plaintiff owned the parcel undermined the required claim of title/hostility for adverse possession.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals reversed the judgment for the defendants and rejected the adverse possession claim.
- The court held the land was not protected by a substantial enclosure.
- The court found insufficient proof that the premises claimed, as a whole, were usually cultivated or improved.
- The court treated the defendants’ prior admission of the plaintiff’s ownership in the earlier right-of-way action as inconsistent with a continuing hostile claim of title to the fee.
- Record title remained in the plaintiff, subject to any easement previously adjudicated.

## Legal Principles

- A claimant without color of title must prove adverse possession by clear and convincing evidence and must satisfy statutory “actual occupation” requirements.
- “Actual occupation” must be shown by substantial enclosure or by premises that are usually cultivated or improved; partial, intermittent, or limited uses may not establish occupation of the full area claimed.
- When adverse possession is asserted over a larger tract without color of title, the character and extent of acts must correspond to the size of the claim.
- A possessor’s formal acknowledgment of another’s ownership in prior litigation may be evidence negating or weakening the claim of title/hostility required for adverse possession.

## Conclusion

The court denied adverse possession because the defendants’ uses did not meet statutory proof of actual occupation of the tract through substantial enclosure or usual cultivation or improvement, and their prior admission of the plaintiff’s ownership supported the conclusion that they had not possessed under a hostile claim of title to the fee.


Van Valkenburgh v. Lutz, 304 N.Y. 95, 106 N.E.2d 28 (N.Y. 1952)