A New York appellate court recently ruled on a property boundary dispute between Timothy J. Riley and John C. Daly, affecting both parties' claims over a disputed area of land in Saratoga County. The decision, made by the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court on October 22, 2026, addresses issues of property rights, adverse possession, and invasion of privacy.
The case, identified by docket number CV-24-0317, stemmed from a disagreement over the boundary line between adjacent properties in the Town of Malta. The ruling is significant as it clarifies how boundary lines can be determined in disputes involving neighboring properties and the legal standards for establishing property rights.
Timothy J. Riley and his family are the appellants in this case, while John C. Daly and his family are the respondents. Both parties own adjacent parcels of land that were part of a four-lot subdivision. Riley acquired his property in December 1996, believing the boundary line to be marked by a tree line. Daly purchased his property in 2004, and the dispute began when Daly erected a chain link fence in 2006, which Riley claimed was on his property.
The disagreement escalated over the years, leading to accusations of trespassing and other claims from both sides. In 2018, Riley filed a lawsuit seeking to establish the boundary line based on the doctrine of practical location, which allows for boundaries to be recognized based on long-standing use and mutual agreement. In response, Daly filed a separate action claiming timber trespass and other violations. The two cases were consolidated, and both parties sought summary judgment to resolve the dispute.
The Supreme Court of Saratoga County, presided over by Justice Dianne Freestone, ultimately denied Riley's motion for summary judgment and granted Daly's cross-motion to establish the boundary line based on a professional land survey. The court ruled that the boundary line should be determined by actual location rather than practical location, which led to Riley's appeal.
In its ruling, the appellate court found that Riley had not met the burden of proof necessary to establish that the boundary line should be set by practical location. The court stated, "Under these circumstances, we perceive no error with Supreme Court's determination that plaintiffs failed to satisfy their burden of establishing that the practical location of the boundary line was definitely and equally known, understood and settled for a period of more than 10 years." This indicates that mutual agreement and consistent use over time are critical for establishing a boundary line under this doctrine.
The court also noted that while Riley argued the boundary was marked by wooden stakes, Daly's construction of the fence contradicted this claim. The court emphasized that the evidence did not demonstrate mutual acquiescence to the boundary line as required for practical location.
On the other hand, the court upheld Daly's cross-motion to set the boundary line based on survey evidence. Daly provided documentation from a professional land surveyor, who confirmed that the surveys conducted by both parties were substantially identical in their findings. The court stated that the evidence presented by Daly was sufficient to support the establishment of the boundary line based on actual location.
However, the appellate court found that the Supreme Court erred in dismissing Riley's claim for invasion of privacy. The court ruled that Riley raised triable issues of fact regarding the installation of surveillance cameras by Daly, which may have violated privacy laws. The court referenced the New York Civil Rights Law § 52-a, which protects homeowners from unauthorized video surveillance of their private activities in their backyards.
The court stated, "Based on the foregoing, these contentions fit squarely within the legislative purpose behind Civil Rights Law § 52-a, and therefore we are satisfied that plaintiffs have raised triable issues of fact relating to their invasion of privacy cause of action which should have survived summary judgment." This ruling reinstates Riley's claim for invasion of privacy, allowing it to proceed in court.
The implications of this ruling are significant for property owners facing similar disputes. The court's decision clarifies the standards for establishing property boundaries and highlights the importance of mutual agreement and long-term use in boundary disputes. Additionally, the ruling on invasion of privacy underscores the legal protections available to homeowners regarding surveillance by neighbors.
Going forward, this case may set a precedent for how courts interpret boundary disputes and privacy rights in residential areas. Property owners should be aware of the importance of clear communication and documentation regarding property boundaries to avoid similar conflicts.
As for the future of this case, it remains to be seen whether either party will seek further appeals. The appellate court's decision allows Riley's invasion of privacy claim to proceed, while the boundary line dispute has been largely resolved in favor of Daly. There may also be related actions pending as both parties continue to navigate the implications of this ruling.