82 Willis Avenue Corp. v. State

— Judgment, Court of Claims (Adolph C. Orlando, J.), entered February 5, 1991, which dismissed claimants’ claim for failure to establish adverse possession of the disputed property, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

A review of the record demonstrates that claimants have failed to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that they adversely possessed the disputed property (see, Rusoff v Engel, 89 AD2d 587 ). Indeed, claimants have not established the five elements necessary to prove adverse possession, i.e., the possession must be hostile and under a claim of right, actual, open and notorious, exclusive, and continuous for the statutory period (see, Esposito v Stackler, 160 AD2d 1154 , 1155). Here, the evidence indicates, inter alia, that the claimants’ deed clearly did not include the disputed property and that claimants’ use was neither hostile nor open and notorious. (See, RPAPL 522; Golden Hammer Auto Body Corp. v Consolidated Rail Corp., 151 AD2d 545 .) Concur — Murphy, P. J., Carro, Rosenberger, Kupferman and Ross, JJ.