From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Downes v. Peluso

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 2, 1985
115 A.D.2d 454 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985)

Opinion

December 2, 1985

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Hyman, J.).


Order affirmed, with costs.

Special Term properly dismissed this action brought under RPAPL article 15 as barred by the 10-year Statute of Limitations (see, CPLR 212 [a]). A person claiming title to real property, but not in possession thereof, must act, affirmatively and within the time provided by statute (Orange Rockland Utilities v Philwold Estates, 52 N.Y.2d 253; Ford v Clendenin, 215 N.Y. 10). Plaintiff never alleged, nor has she established, her possession of the real property in issue. Special Term properly exercised its discretion in denying her leave to amend her complaint as, under any conceivable recitation of the facts, she could not satisfy the requirement of possession (see, Sharapata v Town of Islip, 82 A.D.2d 350, affd 56 N.Y.2d 332; Citibank v Suthers, 68 A.D.2d 790). Gibbons, J.P., Bracken, Kunzeman and Kooper, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Downes v. Peluso

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 2, 1985
115 A.D.2d 454 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985)
Case details for

Downes v. Peluso

Case Details

Full title:ROSALIE DOWNES, Appellant, v. TINA M. PELUSO, Respondent

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Dec 2, 1985

Citations

115 A.D.2d 454 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985)

Citing Cases

WPA Acquisition Corp. v. Lynch

While the Supreme Court properly held that the plaintiffs claim to the disputed strip is barred by laches (…

TEG N.Y. LLC. v. ARDENWOOD ESTATES, INC.

The statute of limitations governing such a cause of action is ten years. CPLR § 212(a); see e.g. Robins…