| Bank of Am., N.A. v 414 Midland Ave. Assoc., LLC |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 08053 [78 AD3d 746] |
| November 9, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Bank of America, N.A., as Trustee of the Trust under the Will ofEdith Quirk, Respondent, v 414 Midland Avenue Associates, LLC, et al., Appellants, etal., Defendants. |
—[*1] Kurzman Eisenberg Corbin & Lever, LLP, White Plains, N.Y. (Eric D. Koster and Judith C.Zerden of counsel), for respondent.
In an action to quiet title to the plaintiff's alleged one-third interest in certain real property, tobe restored to possession of the property, and for damages, the defendants 414 Midland AvenueAssociates, LLC, and Provident Bank appeal from stated portions of an order of the SupremeCourt, Westchester County (Smith, J.), dated July 16, 2009, which, inter alia, granted thosebranches of the plaintiff's motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (b) which were to dismiss theiraffirmative defenses of ouster, adverse possession, failure to state a cause of action, a defensefounded on documentary evidence, the statute of limitations, laches, waiver, estoppel, uncleanhands, and culpable conduct on the part of the plaintiff, and so much of their first counterclaim asasserted that the plaintiff's interest in the property was extinguished by ouster, the statute oflimitations, estoppel, and laches.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
At issue in this case is whether the appellant 414 Midland Avenue Associates, LLC(hereinafter the LLC), holds a two-thirds interest in the subject property, with the plaintiff, Bankof America, N.A. (hereinafter the trustee), holding the remaining one-third interest. In itscomplaint, the trustee alleges, inter alia, that it administers a trust created during the life of EdithQuirk, who died on October 27, 1997. Edith Quirk had acquired a one-third undivided interest inthe subject property upon the death of her husband, John P. Quirk, in 1995. At that time, LeslieP. Quirk was the owner of an undivided two-thirds interest. In his will, Leslie P. Quirkbequeathed his interest in equal shares to the defendants Corey Kupersmith and KennethKupersmith. By deed dated May 26, 1996, recorded June 11, 1996 (hereinafter the Kupersmithdeed), Corey Kupersmith, as executor of Leslie P. Quirk's estate, conveyed Leslie P. Quirk'sinterest to himself and his brother Kenneth Kupersmith. The Kupersmith deed stated that "ALL"of the property was being conveyed. In 2007, Kenneth Kupersmith executed a quitclaim deedreleasing any interest he had to Corey Kupersmith. In 2008, Corey Kupersmith purported toconvey the entire subject property to the LLC, which took out a first mortgage in the principalsum of $840,000 and a second mortgage in the sum of $280,000 from the appellant ProvidentBank.[*2]
On December 2, 2008, the trustee commenced this action,inter alia, to quiet title to its alleged one-third interest in the subject property. In their answer, theappellants asserted affirmative defenses including ouster, adverse possession, failure to state acause of action, a defense founded on documentary evidence, the statute of limitations, laches,waiver, estoppel, unclean hands, and culpable conduct on the part of the trustee. In their firstcounterclaim, they seek a judgment declaring that the LLC is the owner of the complete feeinterest on the grounds, among other things, that the LLC is a bona fide purchaser for value, thetrustee was effectively ousted from the subject property by the Kupersmith deed, and the trustee'sinterest was extinguished by the applicable 10-year statute of limitations, equitable estoppel, andlaches. In their second counterclaim pursuant to RPAPL article 15, they seek a judgment quietingtitle and declaring any interest of the trustee to be void on the ground that the LLC is a bona fidepurchaser for value. In support of their counterclaims, the appellants allege that the trustee hadconstructive notice of its ouster on June 11, 1996, when the Kupersmith deed was recorded, andinquiry notice of the ouster on October 27, 1997, when Edith Quirk died and the property passedto the trust, for which the trustee had a duty to account. They further allege that the trustee hadactual notice of the ouster in 2001, when the trustee's attorney became aware of a chain of titlecontaining the Kupersmith deed, yet waited until 2008 to commence this action to quiet title.
The trustee moved to dismiss the affirmative defenses and counterclaims, contending that asa matter of law, the Kupersmith deed did not constitute an ouster because there was no change inpossession after that deed was recorded. The Supreme Court, in the order appealed from, interalia, dismissed the affirmative defenses of ouster, adverse possession, failure to state a cause ofaction, a defense founded on documentary evidence, the statute of limitations, laches, waiver,estoppel, unclean hands, and culpable conduct on the part of the trustee, and so much of the firstcounterclaim as asserted that the trustee's interest in the property was extinguished by ouster, thestatute of limitations, estoppel, and laches. That branch of the trustee's motion which soughtdismissal of the second counterclaim alleging that the LLC is a bona fide purchaser for value wasdenied, and that determination is not challenged on appeal.
In determining a motion to dismiss a cause of action pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7), or, as inthis case, a counterclaim, the pleading is afforded a liberal construction, the facts alleged areaccepted as true, and the proponent of the pleading is accorded the benefit of every favorableinference (see CPLR 3026; Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 87-88 [1994];Cayuga Partners v 150 Grand, 305 AD2d 527 [2003]). Those branches of the trustee'smotion which were to dismiss the affirmative defenses were governed by CPLR 3211 (b), whichauthorizes a plaintiff to make such a motion on grounds that "a defense is not stated or has nomerit." The motion is granted if the plaintiff can demonstrate that the "defenses are without meritas a matter of law because they either do not apply under the factual circumstances of [the] case,or fail to state a defense" (Tenore vKantrowitz, Goldhamer & Graifman, P.C., 76 AD3d 556, 557-558 [2010]). On a motionpursuant to CPLR 3211 (b), the court should apply the same standard as it applies to motions todismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7), and the factual assertions will be accepted as true (seeSiegel, NY Prac § 269, at 449 [4th ed]; Greco v Christoffersen, 70 AD3d 769, 771 [2010]). Here, acceptingthe appellants' allegations as true, the Supreme Court properly dismissed the aforesaidaffirmative defenses and so much of their first counterclaim as asserted that the trustee's interestin the property was extinguished by ouster, the statute of limitations, estoppel, and laches.
"Where parties hold property as tenants in common, Real Property Actions and ProceedingsLaw § 541 creates a statutory presumption that a tenant in common in possession holds theproperty for the benefit of the cotenant" (Russo Realty Corp. v Orlando, 30 AD3d 499, 500 [2006]; seeRPAPL 541). "The presumption ceases only after the expiration of 10 years exclusiveoccupancy of such tenant or upon ouster" (Pravato v M.E.F. Bldrs., 217 AD2d 654, 655[1995]). "Although actual ouster usually requires a possessing cotenant to expresslycommunicate an intention to exclude or to deny the rights of cotenants, the common law alsorecognizes the existence of implied ouster in cases where the acts of the possessing cotenant areso openly hostile that the nonpossessing cotenants can be presumed to know that the property isbeing adversely possessed against them" (Myers v Bartholomew, 91 NY2d 630, 633[1998]). The mere recording of a deed, without any change in possession or notice to theallegedly ousted cotenant, does not constitute an ouster (see Culver v Rhodes, 87 NY[*3]348, 353 [1882]; Goodwin v Nixon, 15 Misc 3d1142[A], 2007 NY Slip Op 51111[U] [2007]; Matter of Nazarro, 7 Misc 3d 1001[A],2005 NY Slip Op 50396[U] [2005]; cf. Pravato v M.E.F. Bldrs., 217 AD2d at 655). Titleby adverse possession is acquired when possession is hostile and under claim of right, actual,open and notorious, exclusive, and continuous for the statutory period of 10 years after ouster (see Walling v Przybylo, 7 NY3d228, 232 [2006]).
Here, contrary to the appellants' contention, the mere recording of the Kupersmith deed onJune 11, 1996, did not constitute an ouster of the trustee, since no change in possession of theproperty was alleged. The trustee's first actual notice of the conveyance allegedly occurred in2001. The trustee commenced this action in 2008, within the 10-year statutory limitations period(see CPLR 212 [a]; RPAPL 501). The appellants, therefore, failed to adequately allegethe defenses of ouster, adverse possession, and statute of limitations and so much of their firstcounterclaim as asserted that the plaintiff's interest in the property was extinguished by ousterand the statute of limitations.
Where an owner knows of a defect in title and fails to address it, laches does not apply unlessthe facts are sufficient to constitute equitable estoppel (see Kraker v Roll, 100 AD2d 424,433 [1984]; Washington Temple Church of God in Christ, Inc. v Global Props. & Assoc.,Inc., 15 Misc 3d 1142[A], 2007 NY Slip Op 51114[U] [2007], affd 55 AD3d 727[2008]). Equitable estoppel arises when a property owner stands by without objection while anopposing party asserts an ownership interest in the property and incurs expense in reliance onthat belief (see Andrews v Cohen, 221 NY 148, 153 [1917]). The property owner must"inexcusably" delay in asserting a claim to the property, knowing that "the opposing party haschanged his position to his irreversible detriment" (Orange & Rockland Utils. v PhilwoldEstates, 70 AD2d 338, 343 [1979], mod on other grounds 52 NY2d 253 [1981]).
Here, the appellants alleged that, in 2008, Corey Kupersmith conveyed the entire subjectproperty to the LLC. However, they made no allegation that the trustee knew of this conveyancebut did nothing. In addition, the appellants do not make any further allegations concerning thetrustee's conduct in support of their affirmative defense of waiver, defined as the voluntary andintentional abandonment of a known right which may not be inferred from mere silence orinaction (see e.g. Golfo v Kycia Assoc.,Inc., 45 AD3d 531, 532-533 [2007]), or their affirmative defenses of unclean hands andculpable conduct. Accordingly, the appellants failed to adequately allege the affirmative defensesof equitable estoppel, laches, waiver, unclean hands, and culpable conduct, and so much of theirfirst counterclaim as asserted that the plaintiff's interest in the property was extinguished byestoppel and laches (see Tenore v Kantrowitz, Goldhamer & Graifman, P.C., 76AD3d 556 [2010]).
The appellants contend that discovery may reveal facts now unknown to them which wouldallow them to plead new facts in support of the legal conclusions they assert. However, whereaffirmative defenses "merely plead conclusions of law without any supporting facts," theaffirmative defenses should be dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3211 (b) (Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. v Farrell, 57AD3d 721, 723 [2008]).
The appellants' remaining contentions are without merit or need not be addressed in light ofour determination. Dillon, J.P., Florio, Angiolillo and Dickerson, JJ., concur.