Opinion
March 19, 1992
Appeal from the Court of Claims (Adolph C. Orlando, J.).
A review of the record demonstrates that claimants have failed to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that they adversely possessed the disputed property (see, Rusoff v Engel, 89 A.D.2d 587). Indeed, claimants have not established the five elements necessary to prove adverse possession, i.e., the possession must be hostile and under a claim of right, actual, open and notorious, exclusive, and continuous for the statutory period (see, Esposito v Stackler, 160 A.D.2d 1154, 1155). Here, the evidence indicates, inter alia, that the claimants' deed clearly did not include the disputed property and that claimants' use was neither hostile nor open and notorious. (See, RPAPL 522; Golden Hammer Auto Body Corp. v Consolidated Rail Corp., 151 A.D.2d 545.)
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Carro, Rosenberger, Kupferman and Ross, JJ.