Enhanced Evidentiary Scrutiny in Forgery and Adverse Possession Claims: New Precedents from 2025 N.Y. Slip Op. 1362

Introduction

This commentary examines the recent decision in the consolidated case of Roland Lewis, et al. v. Stacy Reeves, U.S. Bank National Association, etc., rendered by the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department. In this multifaceted litigation, the parties engaged in disputes involving quiet title actions, allegations of forgery related to a contested deed, and counterclaims of adverse possession. Originally stemming from a 2013 action concerning a deed dispute and subsequently involving a 2016 action challenging a mortgage encumbrance, the case presents a complicated web of procedural and substantive issues. The central matters include whether U.S. Bank’s summary judgment motion dismissing the complaint should be granted, the evidentiary requirements in forgery claims, and the appropriate standards for adjudicating adverse possession claims.

Summary of the Judgment

The decision modifies a previous Supreme Court order by reversing the denial of summary judgment on one branch of the plaintiffs’ cross-motion. Specifically, while the original order both denied U.S. Bank’s summary judgment motion and the plaintiffs’ counter motions (including a request to dismiss U.S. Bank’s third affirmative defense and counterclaim), the panel now substitutes the portion denying summary judgment on the third affirmative defense with a grant, effectively dismissing that defense. The court upheld that U.S. Bank’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against it was properly denied. Additionally, it underscored that the evidentiary shortcomings in the forgery claim and issues related to adverse possession did not justify the court finding in favor of dismissing the counterclaims, given unresolved factual disputes regarding authentication and possession.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The panel’s decision is supported by a number of precedents that anchor its analysis:

• Lewis v Holliman, 176 A.D.3d 1048: This case is central to establishing that the failure to join a necessary party (U.S. Bank, in this instance, as the mortgagee) can result in vacating a previously granted order, underscoring the significance of procedural completeness.
• Lewis v U.S. Bank N.A., 186 A.D.3d 694: The decision in this case is pivotal in modifying prior orders concerning the admissibility of counterclaims—specifically the adverse possession defense.
• CPLR 3126 and related cases: The panel referenced CPLR 3126(2) and relied on authorities such as Flushing AV Laundromat, Inc. v Dekao Qu, and Matter of East End Hangars, Inc. v Town of E. Hampton, N.Y. to clarify that default orders (such as striking an answer) do not afford collateral estoppel benefits against nondefaulting defendants.
• Case Law on Forgery and Evidentiary Burden: Authorities including Knight v New York & Presbyterian Hosp. and Banco Popular N. Am. v Victory Taxi Mgt. illuminate the necessity of offering more than conclusory assertions in claims alleging forgery. The requirement to authenticate handwriting exemplars is crucial and is relevant in understanding the court’s dismissal of the reliance solely on self-serving affidavits.
• Adverse Possession Standards: Cases such as Walling v Przybylo and Estate of Becker v Murtagh reaffirm that adverse possession claims must meet a high evidentiary standard including clear and convincing evidence of hostile, actual, open, exclusive, and continuous possession.
• Additional Authorities: The decision also draws on opinions from cases like Cruz v Pierce and works covering default protocols (e.g., Freeport Plaza Realty, LLC v Freeport Moon, Inc. and Jones v Corley), emphasizing that default orders equate functionally to a default in pleading.

Legal Reasoning

The court’s legal reasoning centers on a careful dissection of both procedural and substantive claims:

Procedural Posture: The consolidation of the 2013, 2016, and an ejection action created complexities regarding the proper parties and claims. Notably, the court stressed that the absence of U.S. Bank’s complete participation in earlier stages (due to its status as a necessary party) warranted the vacatur of the October 2015 order. Thus, the court maintained that the summary judgment on the complaint should be denied.

Forgery Evidence: The court examined the testimony and evidence submitted in support of the forgery claim. It reaffirmed that proving a document is forged requires more than reiterative and self-serving assertions. The court underscored that reliance on a handwriting expert, without authenticated exemplars, fails to satisfy the rigorous evidentiary standard demanded in such cases. Consequently, the lack of persuasive evidence led to a triable issue of fact which precluded summary judgment.

Adverse Possession: In evaluating the counterclaim of adverse possession, the court adopted a strict lens on the statutory requirements that existed prior to the 2008 amendments. It noted that a claimant must clearly establish hostility, possession under a claim of right, and the other elements of adverse possession. Testimony regarding the property’s occupancy and control revealed deficiencies in meeting these stringent criteria. Specifically, the absence of clear evidence that possession was hostile and independent of the true owner’s rights prevented a summary dismissal of U.S. Bank’s counterclaim.

Impact on Future Cases and Legal Doctrine

This decision is poised to have several implications:

• Heightened Evidentiary Standards: Future cases involving forgery claims will likely see an increased demand for authenticated evidence when relying on expert testimony. Parties must ensure that handwriting exemplars are meticulously authenticated, given that mere affidavit statements are insufficient.
• Clarification in Adverse Possession Claims: By elaborating on the necessary elements under the pre-amendment statutes, the decision reinforces the need for claimants to clearly demonstrate the adverse and hostile nature of possession, setting a precedent for a more intensive scrutiny in similar disputes.
• Procedural Considerations: The ruling reiterates the importance of joining all necessary parties—such as mortgagees—to avoid detrimental procedural pitfalls. This could influence the drafting and strategy in both quiet title and foreclosure actions.
• Default and Collateral Estoppel Implications: The discussion concerning orders under CPLR 3126 reminds litigants that a default judgment against a nonresponsive party does not bind other parties to collateral estoppel, which may prove to be a vital precedent in multi-party litigation.

Complex Concepts Simplified

To clarify some of the complex legal concepts:

• Summary Judgment: This is a legal procedure where the court decides a case without a full trial if there is no dispute about the material facts. In this decision, both the dismissal and non-dismissal of claims were analyzed under summary judgment standards.
• Forgery and Authentication: Proving forgery requires more than simply stating a document is forged. It necessitates corroborated, authenticated evidence including verified handwriting samples so that expert testimony is anchored in reliable data.
• Adverse Possession: This legal doctrine allows someone to claim property rights if they have occupied the property openly and without permission for a certain period. However, the court here emphasized that every element—especially the concept of hostility, meaning possession must be adverse to the true owner’s rights—must be clearly demonstrated.
• Collateral Estoppel: A legal doctrine that prevents a party from re-litigating issues that have already been decided. The court clarified that an order against a defaulting party does not exert this effect on nondefaulting defendants.

Conclusion

In summary, the 2025 decision in this consolidated action provides critical guidance on several fronts. It refines the evidentiary benchmarks necessary for proving forgery and adverse possession claims and emphasizes strict procedural adherence, especially regarding the inclusion of necessary parties and the authentication of evidence. This ruling not only clarifies the application of summary judgment in quiet title disputes but also sets forth a framework that is likely to influence future litigation in these areas. Legal practitioners will need to heed these clarified standards to effectively advocate for their clients in similar disputes.