Notably, the amendments also added RPAPL 543(1), which provides that "the existence of de [minimis] non-structural encroachments including ... sheds ... shall be deemed to be permissive and non-adverse." Although the 2008 amendments do not retroactively apply in matters where a party had acquired title by adverse possession prior to its enactment (seeChurch of St. Francis De Sales v. McGrath, 200 A.D.3d 1267, 1268 n. 2, 158 N.Y.S.3d 375 [3d Dept. 2021] ; Franza v. Olin, 73 A.D.3d 44, 47, 897 N.Y.S.2d 804 [4th Dept. 2010] ), such amendments will apply when "the purported adverse possession could not vest prior to the enactment of the statute" ( Kopp v. Rhino Room, Inc., 192 A.D.3d 1690, 1692, 145 N.Y.S.3d 739 [4th Dept. 2021] ; seeReyes v. Carroll, 137 A.D.3d 886, 887, 27 N.Y.S.3d 80 [2d Dept. 2016] ). Initially, the 2008 amendments apply in this matter because the record fails to demonstrate any 10–year period before their enactment that could have allowed plaintiffs' title to vest (seeKopp v. Rhino Room, Inc., 192 A.D.3d at 1692, 145 N.Y.S.3d 739 ; Reyes v. Carroll, 137 A.D.3d at 887, 27 N.Y.S.3d 80 ; compareCJA Realty Holdings, LP v. 14 Phila St. LLC, 206 A.D.3d 1520, 1521 n. 2, 171 N.Y.S.3d 257 [3d Dept. 2022] ).
Defendants submitted evidence in the form of an affidavit and deposition testimony, which taken together demonstrated that, although the nature and type of fencing may have changed over the years, the outdoor seating and dining area was enclosed by a fence beginning in 1997 and remained that way for a continuous period of at least 10 years. Contrary to Supreme Court's conclusion, evidence of the fence's continued existence and the ongoing use of the outdoor seating and dining area demonstrates that, although 14 Phila Street was transferred to another of defendants’ predecessors in interest in 2008, the successive periods of adverse possession between the property's prior owners could be tacked to reach the prescriptive 10–year period (see generallyBrand v. Prince, 35 N.Y.2d 634, 637, 364 N.Y.S.2d 826, 324 N.E.2d 314 [1974] ; compareKopp v. Rhino Room, Inc., 192 A.D.3d 1690, 1691, 145 N.Y.S.3d 739 [2021] ). In short, defendants made a prima facie showing that their predecessors’ use of the disputed portion of the easement was actual, open, notorious, exclusive and continuous for the prescriptive period (seeSpiegel v. Ferraro, 73 N.Y.2d at 627–628, 543 N.Y.S.2d 15, 541 N.E.2d 15 ; compareGold v. DiCerbo, 41 A.D.3d 1051, 1054, 837 N.Y.S.2d 787 [2007], lv denied 9 N.Y.3d 811, 846 N.Y.S.2d 601, 877 N.E.2d 651 [2007] ).
As noted, this case involved a motion for summary judgment and for costs, attorneys' fees, and sanctions, and the court chose not to write. This is an unacceptable practice (see generally Kopp v Rhino Room, Inc., 192 A.D.3d 1690, 1692 [4th Dept 2021]; Cangemi v Yeager, 185 A.D.3d 1397, 1398 [4th Dept 2020]; Doucette v Cuviello, 159 A.D.3d 1528, 1528 [4th Dept 2018]). To maximize effective appellate review, we must remind our colleagues in the trial courts to provide their reasoning instead of simply issuing orders.
This case involved a competing summary judgment motion and cross motion, and the court chose not to write. This is an unacceptable practice (see generally Kopp v Rhino Room, Inc., 192 A.D.3d 1690, 1692 [4th Dept 2021]; Cangemi v Yeager, 185 A.D.3d 1397, 1398 [4th Dept 2020]; Doucette v Cuviello, 159 A.D.3d 1528, 1528 [4th Dept 2018]). To maximize effective appellate review, we must remind our colleagues in the trial courts to provide their reasoning instead of simply issuing orders.
This case involved a competing summary judgment motion and cross motion, and the court chose not to write. This is an unacceptable practice (see generallyKopp v. Rhino Room, Inc. , 192 A.D.3d 1690, 1692, 145 N.Y.S.3d 739 [4th Dept. 2021] ; Cangemi v. Yeager , 185 A.D.3d 1397, 1398, 128 N.Y.S.3d 708 [4th Dept. 2020] ; Doucette v. Cuviello , 159 A.D.3d 1528, 1528, 73 N.Y.S.3d 334 [4th Dept. 2018] ). To maximize effective appellate review, we must remind our colleagues in the trial courts to provide their reasoning instead of simply issuing orders.
As noted, this case involved a motion for summary judgment and for costs, attorneys' fees, and sanctions, and the court chose not to write. This is an unacceptable practice (see generally Kopp v Rhino Room, Inc., 192 A.D.3d 1690, 1692 [4th Dept 2021]; Cangemi v Yeager, 185 A.D.3d 1397, 1398 [4th Dept 2020]; Doucette v Cuviello, 159 A.D.3d 1528, 1528 [4th Dept 2018]). To maximize effective appellate review, we must remind our colleagues in the trial courts to provide their reasoning instead of simply issuing orders.
This case involved a competing summary judgment motion and cross motion, and the court chose not to write. This is an unacceptable practice (see generally Kopp v Rhino Room, Inc., 192 A.D.3d 1690, 1692 [4th Dept 2021]; Cangemi v Yeager, 185 A.D.3d 1397, 1398 [4th Dept 2020]; Doucette v Cuviello, 159 A.D.3d 1528, 1528 [4th Dept 2018]). To maximize effective appellate review, we must remind our colleagues in the trial courts to provide their reasoning instead of simply issuing orders.