Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. Enforces Hotly Contested Adverse Possession Claims
Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C., paved the way (no pun intended) for a Brooklyn client seeking to confirm his adverse possession claims to the driveway between his and his neighbor’s property. After three days of trial, in which it was established that neither the current owners of the neighboring property, nor any of their witnesses, had first-hand knowledge of the property owner’s conduct during the adverse possession time frame, it became clear that the Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. client had taken possession, understanding that he owned the driveway, enclosing it with a gate as of about 1985, and other than permittees here and there, never allowing others to use the driveway except with explicit requested and granted allowance. Accordingly, the owner gained sole control over the driveway through adverse possession as of at least 1995, well before the complaining and subsequent neighboring property owners asserted any challenge.
In the face of what could generously be termed hostile proceedings – the Court permitting improper use of deposition testimony to impeach the opposition’s own witness when veracity had not even been challenged; opposing witnesses fabricating testimony; now-deceased, self-serving witness testimony permitted by former deposition which was readily picked apart by numerous internal inconsistencies; opposing witness testimony allowed remotely despite no applicable exception under the law – Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. trial attorneys were able to maintain the course leading to the correct outcome under the law. At this stage, the parties are engaged in post-trial briefs, which Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. strongly holds must be granted, and if not, in the face of a diversion from the law, are prepared to appeal any unexpected, adverse decision until the merited victory is obtained.
Beyond the somewhat arcane issue of adverse possession – a doctrine permitting trespassers to gain property possession after a 10-year period in which particular conduct must be established – Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. attorneys had to confront sua sponte issues raised by the Court, without any party raising or briefing them beforehand, to address potential fire code issues engendered by our client’s demand for possession. This mid-trial surprise issue required Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. to delve deep into its deep bench of real estate expertise to address statutory and emergency multi-family dwelling egress requirements under the New York City codes. With this deep bench of institutional knowledge, in addition to the factual matters between the parties, our attorneys were able to definitively put to rest any external concerns barring a potential, favorable award.
Ben Rose of Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. prosecuted the trial with the extensive, thorough and eminently effective assistance of Courtney Lerias.