Monthly Archives: November 2024

Court Determines Whether (or Not) William Raised Issue of Fact on Adverse Possession Claim

Stella Vassilakos and her brother, Peter, commenced an action against their brother, William Vassilakos, seeking a judgment declaring that they were tenants in common with a cumulative 40% interest in property located in Brooklyn, to quiet title to the property, and for the partition of the property. William interposed an answer and asserted various affirmative defenses and counterclaims, including that he had acquired sole title to the property by adverse possession. Stella moved for summary judgment on the complaint and dismissing William’s affirmative defenses and counterclaims. Supreme Court denied the motion. Stella appealed.

To obtain summary judgment in an action to quiet title pursuant to RPAPL article 15, the movant must establish, prima facie, that it holds title, or that the nonmovant’s title claim is without merit. Here, Stella established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence that Stella and the others each acquired an interest in the property as tenants in common upon the death of their father intestate in 1988, and thereafter, they each acquired an additional interest in the property as tenants in common upon the death of their mother intestate in 2004.

Court Determines Whether (Or Not) Earth Movement Policy Exclusion Applied

Robert Parisi was the owner of a house in Blue Point.  A leak from a refrigerator water line saturated a layer of fill earth inside the walls of the property, which in turn caused the foundation wall to collapse. Parisi submitted a claim to his insurer, Kingstone Insurance Company. Kingstone denied coverage for the foundation damage on the ground that the insurance policy excluded damage caused by earth movement and/or water damage.

Parisi commenced an action against Kingstone to recover damages for breach of an insurance contract and bad faith in denying insurance coverage. Parisi moved for summary judgment on the complaint or, alternatively, for summary judgment on the issue of liability. Kingstone cross-moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Supreme Court granted Parisi’s motion which was for summary judgment on the issue of liability and denied Kingstone’s cross-motion. Kingstone appealed.