1. Was 2 North’s use “notorious” given the fact that it is likely that Getty didn’t realize that the land strip was on its property? What does one have to do to use property in a notorious fashion?

2. How did 2 North satisfy the improvement requirement?

3. Should Getty be compensated for the strip of land taken by adverse possession? Should there be an offset for all of the money invested by 2 North in maintenance?

2 North Street is a corporation that owned a parcel of real estate used for a shopping center and a parking lot. Getty owned the adjacent lot, on which it had operated a gas station. A fence runs close to the boundary line between the properties but lies entirely on Getty’s property. A narrow 0.129-acre strip of land exists between the boundary line and the fence. 2 North maintained the strip of land from the time the company purchased the property. For a period of approximately 23 years, 2 North paid a contractor to continuously maintain the strip’s grass. The contractor also planted vegetation, removed rubbish and debris, and deposited snow plowed from 2 North’s parking lot upon it. Getty never questioned the activities of the contractor, nor did anyone representing Getty grant the contractor permission to perform them. In 2007, 2 North brought an action seeking a declaration that it owned the strip of land through adverse possession. Getty objected on the basis that 2 North’s use of the strip was not open and notorious enough to constitute notice to others claiming an adverse and hostile interest in the land. The trial court ruled in favor of 2 North, and Getty appealed.

The appellate division of the Supreme Court of New York affirmed the lower court’s decision and held in favor of 2 North. The court ruled that 2 North had met its statutory burden of establishing that the character of the possession was hostile under a claim of right, actual, open and notorious, exclusive, and continuous for the statutory period of 10 years. The court was convinced that 2 North initially believed that it owned the strip and exclusively maintained it as its own even though the strip was not included in its deed description. This evidence of 2 North’s continuous use and maintenance of the strip exemplified its possession as open and notorious, constituting notice to others that it was claiming an adverse and hostile interest in it.

“[The statute also requires] ‘usual cultivation or improvement.’ [Evidence of] this mandate will vary with the nature and situation of the property and the uses to which it can be applied and must consist of acts such as are usual in the ordinary cultivation and improvement of similar lands by thrifty owners. Notwithstanding [Getty’s] assertions to the contrary, the [contractor’s] activities on behalf of [2 North] and its predecessor over a period of 27 years were consistent with the nature, location and potential use of this property—a narrow strip of grass between two commercial businesses.”