DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
A party seeking to obtain title to real property by adverse possession on a claim not based upon a written instrument must establish that the property was "usually cultivated or improved" or "protected by a substantial inclosure" (RPAPL 522; see Barnett v. Nelson, 248 A.D.2d 656, 656-657). In addition, the party must satisfy the common-law requirement of demonstrating, by clear and convincing evidence, that the possession of the property was hostile and under a claim of right, actual, open and notorious, exclusive, and continuous for the statutory period ( see Belotti v. Bickhardt, 228 N.Y. 296, 302; Oak Ponds v. Willumsen, 295 A.D.2d 587, 588; MAG Assocs. v. SDR Realty, 247 A.D.2d 516, 517). In the present case, the Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiffs' motion and the defendants' cross motion for summary judgment, as there exist triable issues of fact ( see generally Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557, 562).
ALTMAN, J.P., H. MILLER, ADAMS and TOWNES, JJ., concur.