Genesee County Fish & Game Protective Assn., Inc. v. Sullivan (2025):
The Road to Title—When Long-Term Maintenance and Control Ripen into Fee Ownership of Shared Access Roads

Introduction

On 6 June 2025 the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, in Genesee County Fish & Game Protective Association, Inc. v. Sullivan, affirmed summary judgment declaring the Association the fee owner of an entire private roadway— “Godfrey’s Pond Road”—by adverse possession. The controversy pitted a century-old conservation club (the Association) against neighbouring landowners Capri Sullivan (a/k/a Capri Dix) and William Dix, who asserted ownership of the eastern lane of the road after a 2015 conveyance placed that half of the road within Sullivan’s parcel. The core legal issue was whether the Association’s decades-long use, upkeep and control of the roadway met the pre-2008 elements of adverse possession, particularly the disputed elements of “exclusivity” and “hostility,” despite occasional use by the record owners and a history of cordial neighbourly relations.

Summary of the Judgment

The Fourth Department (Curran, J.P., Smith & Greenwood, JJ., concurring; DelConte & Hannah, JJ., dissenting) held:

• The pre-2008 version of RPAPL article 5 applied because title, if adverse, would have vested before 2008.
• The Association established—by clear and convincing evidence—all five common-law elements of adverse possession (hostile, actual, open & notorious, exclusive, continuous for the statutory period).
• Acts such as paving, widening, plowing, repairing, signing, and mowing both lanes of the road for almost a century satisfied “actual” possession and the statutory “cultivated or improved” requirement (RPAPL former §522).
• Exclusivity was not negated by occasional recreational use by the defendants or their predecessors, nor by the great-grandfather’s sporadic contributions of gravel in the 1950s.
• Hostility was presumed from the Association’s visible dominion and was not rebutted; neighbourly cooperation and absence of animus do not equal permissive use without direct proof of permission.
• Defendants’ cross-motion to quiet title and to dismiss the complaint was properly denied.

Accordingly, the order granting the Association fee title to the entire road and quieting title in its favour was affirmed.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited and Their Influence

• Estate of Becker v. Murtagh, 19 NY3d 75 (2012) – Central to exclusivity and hostility analysis. The court borrowed Chief Judge Lippman’s formulation that exclusivity means the claimant “alone care[s] for or improve[s] the disputed property as if it were his own,” and that allowing others to use the property does not necessarily defeat exclusivity so long as the claimant’s use is “separate and exclusive from the general use.”
• Walling v. Przybylo, 7 NY3d 228 (2006) – Reiterated that “actual occupation, not subjective knowledge” controls claim-of-right; cited to defeat defendants’ argument that the Association’s knowledge of the boundary precluded hostility.
• Ray v. Beacon Hudson Mountain Corp., 88 NY2d 154 (1996) – Provided standards for what constitutes “actual” possession and “cultivated or improved” land.
• Rote v. Gibbs, 195 AD3d 1521 (4th Dept 2021) – Confirmed that pre-2008 RPAPL applies where vesting predates 2008, and discussed exclusivity where the claimant, not the owner, maintained the property.
• Spiegel v. Ferraro, 73 NY2d 622 (1989) – Upheld adverse possession of a driveway; the Fourth Department analogised the Association’s paving and signage to the driveway paving and marking in Spiegel.
• Belotti v. Bickhardt, 228 NY 296 (1920) & Brand v. Prince, 35 NY2d 634 (1974) – Quoted to reinforce that adverse possession, while disfavoured, is a legitimate mechanism for stabilising land titles.

2. The Court’s Legal Reasoning

1. Choice of Law. Because the complained-of possession pre-dated the 2008 statutory amendments, the court refused to apply the stricter modern requirements (e.g., RPAPL §543’s “substantial enclosure” rule).
2. Actual, Open & Notorious, Continuous Possession. Near-daily use, complete maintenance, installation of signage and speed-limit posts, and mowing of adjacent shoulders for decades provided irrefutable evidence. These activities were “acts of ownership” apparent to any reasonable observer.
3. Exclusivity.
   • Key test: whether claimant’s use is “separate and exclusive from the general use.”
   • Governmental snow-plowing or contractor paving at the Association’s request/expense did not defeat exclusivity.
   • Occasional ATV rides, horseback riding or delivery access by defendants were deemed de minimis recreational forays insufficient to vitiate exclusivity.
   • Minor gravel contributions from the great-grandfather were too sporadic and remote (1950s) to interrupt the Association’s dominion.
4. Hostility / Claim of Right.
   • The presumption of hostility arises from continuous open possession.
   • No documentary or testimony established express permission; neighbours’ “assumptions” or cordial relations are not permission.
   • Even if neighbourliness existed, the Association’s paving, signage, and policing of the road against non-members objectively infringed the recorded owner’s rights, satisfying hostility.
5. Burdens of Proof. The Association submitted clear and convincing evidence; defendants failed to raise triable fact issues because their proof of permissive use was double hearsay or speculative.

3. Impact of the Decision

The ruling tightens and clarifies adverse-possession analysis in at least three respects:

1. Shared Access Roads. Maintenance and control of an apparently “private” roadway—where the title line splits the middle—can mature into fee title, not merely an easement, if the claimant’s actions are comprehensive and continuous.
2. Neighbourly Cooperation Doctrine. Friendly relations alone will not imply permission; tangible evidence of a licence is required. Future litigants alleging permissiveness must marshal direct proof (e.g., writings, testimony of explicit consent).
3. Sporadic Owner Participation. Limited, occasional contributions (gravel, brief passage) or recreational uses by the record owner will not defeat exclusivity or hostility when weighed against decades of claimant control.

Practitioners can expect this precedent to be cited whenever:

• A private club, HOA, or similar organisation has long serviced a driveway or lane crossing a neighbour’s land;
• A record owner argues that cordial relations implied permission;
• Courts must decide whether limited owner activity interrupts exclusivity.

Because the court distinguished—but did not overrule—post-2008 caselaw, the decision also underscores that attorneys must pinpoint when adverse title allegedly vested, lest they import inapplicable statutory hurdles.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Adverse Possession: A method of acquiring title by occupying land openly, without the owner’s permission, for a statutorily-defined period (in New York, generally 10 years).
• Hostility (Claim of Right): Not anger or aggression, but occupation in a manner inconsistent with (and without recognition of) the true owner’s rights; can be presumed when other elements exist.
• Exclusivity: Possession that is separate from the public’s or the owner’s use. Permitting occasional access does not defeat exclusivity if the claimant alone manages, improves, and controls the property.
• Pre-2008 vs. Post-2008 RPAPL: The 2008 amendments demanded “substantial enclosure” or “usual cultivation/improvement.” When possession vested before 2008, the earlier, more flexible common-law standards apply.
• Quiet Title Action: A lawsuit asking a court to declare who owns the land and to remove any “clouds” on title.

Conclusion

Genesee County Fish & Game Protective Assn., Inc. v. Sullivan stands as a robust affirmation that concentrated, long-term maintenance and control of a roadway—even one historically travelled by neighbours—can ripen into fee ownership. The Fourth Department clarified that: (1) exclusivity hinges on dominion, not on absolute exclusion; (2) hostility may coexist with neighbourly civility; and (3) sporadic owner contributions are usually insufficient to interrupt the statutory clock. The judgment therefore stabilises titles to countless rural lanes and private roads whose centerlines straddle property boundaries, signalling to landowners that vigilance—not mere cordiality—is required to preserve ownership rights.