Practical Location Without Mistake: Former Fence Fixes Boundary; Necessary Parties and Laches Narrowly Applied — Manieri v. Ebers (2d Dep’t 2025)

Introduction

In Manieri v. Ebers (2025 NY Slip Op 05514), the Appellate Division, Second Department, affirms a clear and consequential application of New York’s doctrine of practical location to resolve a boundary dispute between adjoining owners in Greenwood Lake. The court holds that a former fence—mutually treated by neighbors as the property line for more than the statutory period—conclusively established the boundary between the parcels even if it deviated from the deeds. The decision also rejects defenses rooted in CPLR 1001 (necessary parties) and laches, clarifying the evidentiary and equitable frameworks that govern quiet title and declaratory judgment actions under RPAPL article 15.

Parties: Plaintiff-respondent Mark Manieri and defendant-appellant Carly Ebers own adjoining parcels. The dispute centers on a small triangular strip along their common boundary and the legal effect of a fence that stood for over a decade before being removed in 2019.

Core issues:

• Whether the former fence constituted the boundary under the doctrine of practical location despite contrary “calls” in the deeds.
• Whether dismissal was required for failure to join a “necessary party” under CPLR 1001.
• Whether laches barred the plaintiff’s declaratory claim regarding land south of the fence line.

Summary of the Opinion

The Second Department affirmed the Supreme Court (Orange County) in all respects relevant to the appeal:

• Granted summary judgment declaring that the former fence constituted the boundary line pursuant to the doctrine of practical location.
• Denied the defendant’s cross-motion seeking dismissal for failure to join a necessary party (CPLR 1001) and on the equitable ground of laches.
• Remitted for entry of a judgment declaring the fence line to be the boundary.

The court emphasized two doctrinal points: (1) practical location requires a clearly demarcated boundary and mutual acquiescence for more than the statutory period; it does not require proof of a mutual mistake; and (2) the laches defense fails where the record shows timely objection sufficient to negate equitable estoppel.

Detailed Analysis

Procedural posture and key facts

• In June 2021, plaintiff sued under RPAPL article 15, seeking to quiet title and to declare ownership of a triangular strip between the parcels.
• In May 2023, plaintiff amended to add a cause of action for a declaration that a former fence—within the disputed area—was the boundary under practical location.
• Evidence supporting summary judgment included surveys and affidavits from the defendant’s predecessor and a neighbor attesting that the fence was mutually understood as the boundary for more than ten years. The fence was removed in 2019.
• Defendant opposed, arguing the plaintiff had not met the elements of practical location, and cross-moved to dismiss on “necessary party” and laches grounds.

Precedents cited and their role

• Katz v Kaiser, 154 NY 294:
  • Foundational Court of Appeals decision recognizing that a boundary line given practical location and long acquiescence is conclusive even if not the true deed line.
  • Used here to anchor the principle and to reject a “mutual mistake” requirement.
• Baldwin v Brown, 16 NY 359:
  • Root authority stating that long acquiescence is itself proof the boundary is correct.
  • Cited to underscore that practical location stands independent of mistake.
• Czenszak v Iasello, 227 AD3d 772:
  • Recent Second Department case restating that practical location plus acquiescence for more than the statutory period is conclusive.
  • Provides current appellate articulation used to frame the rule in Manieri.
• Jakubowicz v Solomon, 107 AD3d 852; McMahon v Thornton, 69 AD3d 1157; Lounsbury v Yeomans, 139 AD3d 1230:
  • Stand for the elements: clear demarcation and mutual acquiescence—“definitely and equally known, understood and settled.”
  • Applied here to fences as quintessential “clear demarcations.”
• Waterview Towers, Inc. v 2610 Cropsey Dev. Corp., 181 AD3d 754; Tesone v Hoffman, 84 AD3d 1219:
  • Support summary judgment where affidavits and surveys show acquiescence to a clear boundary line over the statutory period.
• Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851:
  • Bedrock summary judgment principle: a movant must establish entitlement to judgment as a matter of law; if it fails, denial follows without regard to opposition papers.
  • Used here to affirm denial of the defendant’s cross-motion on laches and necessary party grounds.
• Matter of Castaways Motel v Schuyler, 24 NY2d 120; Blatt v Johar, 177 AD3d 634; Rimberg v Horowitz, 206 AD3d 832:
  • Define and limit “indispensable” or necessary parties under CPLR 1001: only those whose rights would be adversely affected or whose absence prevents complete relief.
  • Applied to reject the defendant’s joinder argument.
• Stein v Doukas, 98 AD3d 1026; Bank of Am., N.A. v 414 Midland Ave. Assoc., LLC, 78 AD3d 746; Olowofela v Olowofela, 204 AD3d 821; Bricker v Thorsen, 230 AD3d 1095:
  • Lay out the elements of laches and the requirement of equitable estoppel (owner must “stand by” without objection while the other relies and incurs expense).
  • Support rejection of laches where plaintiff’s counsel sent a cautionary letter objecting to encroachment.

Legal reasoning

Practical location. The court reiterates the classic rule: when adjoining owners for more than ten years mutually acquiesce in a clear, physically marked line (here, a fence), that line becomes the legal boundary—even if it deviates from deed descriptions. The plaintiff’s proof met the prima facie burden:

• Clear demarcation: the former fence line.
• Mutual acquiescence: affidavits from the defendant’s predecessor and a neighbor confirming that both sides treated the fence as the boundary.
• Duration: more than a decade before the fence was removed in 2019.
• Corroboration: surveys showing the fence location relative to the disputed triangle.

The defendant raised no triable issue of fact. Critically, the Second Department rejects the notion that a “mutual mistake” about the true line is a required element. Practical location and long acquiescence are “of themselves proof that the location is correct” (Baldwin; Katz; Jakubowicz). This precision matters: it streamlines the plaintiff’s burden and avoids tethering the doctrine to disputed states of mind at the time the line arose.

Necessary parties under CPLR 1001. The court applies Castaways/Blatt to hold that the defendant did not show any absent person whose rights would be inequitably affected or whose joinder was necessary for complete relief between the current litigants. The mere possibility that others might have an interest is not enough; the movant must demonstrate concrete prejudice to a nonparty or an inability for the court to fashion complete relief as to the parties of record.

Laches. The elements include prejudicial delay plus circumstances creating equitable estoppel: the property owner must have “stood by” while the other party relied and incurred detriment. The record showed plaintiff’s counsel sent a letter cautioning the defendant not to encroach south of the fence line. That objection undermines “standing by” and vitiates the estoppel element. Therefore, the defendant did not carry her prima facie burden on laches. By operation of Winegrad, the cross-motion was properly denied “without regard to the sufficiency” of plaintiff’s opposition.

Remedy. Because the action is, in part, for declaratory relief, the court remits for entry of a declaratory judgment that the former fence line is the boundary, including customary costs.

Impact and significance

• Boundary certainty through physical markers: The decision fortifies the evidentiary power of long-standing physical demarcations—especially fences—when coupled with mutual acquiescence. Owners and courts can look beyond deeds to real-world usage in stabilizing boundaries.
• No “mistake” requirement: By expressly rejecting a mistake element, the court simplifies proof and deters opportunistic challenges years after neighbors have “lived the line.” This reduces litigation risk where the parties’ conduct plainly treated a line as fixed.
• Evidence blueprint: Affidavits from a predecessor in title and a long-time neighbor, paired with surveys, can sustain summary judgment for practical location. Photographs or maintenance records would presumably further strengthen such showings in future cases.
• Fence removal does not unwind the boundary: Once practical location has matured through long acquiescence, later removal of the marker does not undo the boundary. Parties should assume that historic usage controls notwithstanding subsequent physical changes.
• Narrow view of “necessary parties”: The decision underscores that defendants cannot derail RPAPL article 15 litigation with speculative joinder arguments. Concrete showing of an absent party’s adversely affected rights is required.
• Laches is hard to prove against a vocal neighbor: A timely objection—such as counsel’s letter—defeats the “standing by” needed for equitable estoppel. Proactive objections are a powerful shield against laches in property disputes.
• Precedential weight: As a Second Department ruling, it is binding on trial courts within the department and will be persuasive elsewhere. It aligns with, and updates, enduring Court of Appeals authorities (Katz; Baldwin), offering modern application in summary judgment practice.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Doctrine of practical location:
  • What it is: A common-law rule that fixes the boundary where neighboring owners have, for at least the statutory period (generally 10 years in New York), treated a visible line (like a fence) as the property line.
  • Key elements: (1) a clear, physical demarcation; (2) mutual acquiescence by both sides; (3) for more than the statutory period.
  • Not required: Proof of a mutual mistake about the true deed line.
  • Why it matters: Promotes stability and reliance on long-standing, lived boundaries.
• Difference from adverse possession:
  • Adverse possession requires hostile, open, notorious, continuous, and exclusive possession under a claim of right for the statutory period.
  • Practical location centers on mutual acquiescence to a visible boundary, not hostility. It is cooperative rather than adverse in its premise.
• “Statutory period”:
  • Refers to the time period after which the law treats the practical boundary as conclusive. In New York, this period is generally 10 years for real property boundary controversies.
• CPLR 1001 “necessary parties”:
  • Who is necessary: Someone without whom complete relief cannot be granted among current parties, or whose rights would be inequitably affected by the judgment.
  • What is not enough: Vague or speculative claims that someone else “might” be affected. The movant must show concrete prejudice or an obstacle to complete relief.
• Laches and equitable estoppel:
  • Laches bars relief after an inequitable, prejudicial delay in asserting rights.
  • Equitable estoppel component: The owner must have stood by silently while the other party reasonably relied and incurred expense or detriment.
  • Timely objection—especially in writing—undercuts laches by showing the owner did not “stand by.”
• Summary judgment burdens (Winegrad):
  • Movant must establish entitlement as a matter of law based on admissible proof. If the movant fails, the motion is denied regardless of the opponent’s papers.
  • Applied here to deny the defendant’s cross-motion on laches and necessary party grounds.

Practice Pointers

• For property owners:
  • Document neighborly understandings about boundaries; retain surveys, photos, and communications.
  • If you object to a neighbor’s claimed boundary, object promptly and in writing. A lawyer’s letter helps defeat laches.
  • Do not unilaterally remove boundary markers (like a fence) without resolving long-standing usage; doing so may not change the established legal boundary and can precipitate litigation.
• For litigators proving practical location:
  • Gather affidavits from predecessors in title and long-time neighbors attesting to mutual treatment of the line.
  • Use surveys that overlay the physical line against the deed calls and the disputed area.
  • Highlight continuous duration exceeding 10 years; include maintenance, landscaping, and usage patterns that recognize the line.
• For litigators defending:
  • Attack the clarity of the demarcation or the mutuality of acquiescence; show the marker was temporary, sporadic, or unilateral.
  • On necessary parties, be ready to demonstrate specific third-party rights at stake (e.g., an easement holder) and how judgment would inequitably affect them.
  • On laches, produce detailed reliance and expense incurred while the owner remained silent; written objections in the record will typically be fatal to the defense.
• For courts and surveyors:
  • When remitting for declaratory judgment, ensure metes-and-bounds or survey references precisely capture the former fence line now declared to be the boundary.

Conclusion

Manieri v. Ebers reaffirms and clarifies key New York boundary principles:

• A fence line treated as the boundary for more than the statutory period—clearly marked and mutually acquiesced in—conclusively fixes the legal boundary under the doctrine of practical location, without any need to prove a mutual mistake.
• Defendants cannot defeat declaratory claims with generalized “necessary party” assertions; CPLR 1001 demands a substantive showing of prejudice or impediment to complete relief.
• Laches remains a narrow, equitable bar in boundary disputes; timely objection, especially in writing, undercuts equitable estoppel and defeats the defense.

By aligning contemporary summary judgment practice with venerable Court of Appeals precedents (Katz; Baldwin), the Second Department delivers a practical roadmap: long-standing, clearly recognized lines settled by neighborly conduct will be honored, and equitable defenses will not dislodge a boundary that real-world usage has already fixed.