The opinion of the court was delivered by

Haneman, J.

Plaintiffs filed a complaint in the Chancery Division seeking a mandatory and prohibitory injunction against an alleged trespass upon their lands. Defendant counterclaimed for a declaratory judgment which would adjudicate that she had gained title to the disputed premises by adverse possession under N. J. S. 2A:14-6 which provides:

“Every person having any right or title of entry into real estate shall make such entry -within 20 years next after the accrual of such right or title of entry, or be barred therefrom thereafter.”

After plenary trial, judgment was entered for plaintiffs. Mannillo v. Gorski, 100 N. J. Super. 140 (Ch. Div. 1968). Defendant appealed to the Appellate Division. Before argument there, this Court granted defendant’s motion for certification. R. R. 1:10-1A.

The facts are as follows: In 1946, defendant and her husband entered into possession of premises in BLeansburg known as Lot Ho. 1007 in Block 42, under an agreement to purchase. Upon compliance with the terms of said agreement, the seller conveyed said lands to them on April 16, 1952. Defendant’s husband thereafter died. The property consisted of a rectangular lot with a frontage of 25 feet and a depth of 100 feet. Plaintiffs are the owners of the adjacent Lot 1008 in Block 42 of like dimensions, to which they acquired title in 1953.

In the summer of 1946 Chester Gorski, one of the defendant’s sons, made certain additions and changes to the defendant’s house. He extended two rooms at the rear of the structure, enclosed a screened porch on the front, and put a concrete platform with steps on the west side thereof for use in connection with a side door. These steps were built to replace existing wooden steps. In addition, a concrete walk *382was installed from the steps to the end of the house. • In 1953, defendant raised the house. In order to compensate for the resulting added height from the ground, she modified the design of the steps by extending them toward both the front and the rear of the property. She did not change their width.

Defendant admits that the steps and concrete walk encroach upon plaintiffs’ lands to the extent of 15 inches. She contends, however, that she has title to said land by adverse possession. N. J. S. A. 2A :14-6, quoted above. Plaintiffs assert contra-wise that defendant did not obtain title by adverse possession as her possession was not of the requisite hostile nature. They argue that to establish title by adverse possession, the entry into and continuance of possession must be accompanied by an intention to invade the rights of another in the lands, i. e., a knowing wrongful taking. They assert that, as defendant’s encroachment was not accompanied by an intention to invade plaintiffs’ rights in the land, but rather by the mistaken belief that she owned the land, and that therefore an essential requisite to establish title by adverse possession, i. e., an intentional tortious taking, is lacking.

The trial court concluded that defendant had clearly and convincingly proved that her possession of the 15-inch encroachment had existed for more than 20 years before the institution of this suit and that such possession was “exclusive, continuous, uninterrupted, visible, notorious and against the right and interest of the true owner.” There is ample evidence to sustain this finding except as to its visible and notorious nature, of which more hereafter. However, the judge felt impelled by existing New Jersey case law, holding as argued by plaintiffs above, to deny defendant’s claim and entered judgment for plaintiffs. 100 N. J. Super., at 150. The first issue before this Court is, therefore, whether an entry and continuance of possession under the mistaken belief that the possessor has title to the lands involved, exhibits the requisite hostile possession to sustain the obtaining of title by adverse possession.

*383The first detailed statement and acceptance by our then highest court, of the principle that possession as an element of title by adverse possession cannot be bottomed on mistake, is found in Folkman v. Myers, 93 N. J. Eq. 208 (E. & A. 1921), which embraced and followed that thesis as expressed in Myers v. Folkman, 89 N. J. L. 390 (Sup. Ct. 1916). It is not at all clear that this was the common law of this State prior to the latter case. An earlier opinion, Davok v. Nealon, 58 N. J. L. 21 (Sup. Ct. 1895), held for an adverse possessor who had entered under the mistaken belief that he had title without any discussion of his hostile intent. However, the court in Myers v. Folkman, supra, at p. 393, distinguished Eavoclc from the case then under consideration by referring to the fact that “Charles R. Myers disclaims any intent to claim what did not belong to him and apparently never asserted a right to land outside the bounds of his title * * (Emphasis supplied) The factual distinction between the two cases, according to Myers, is that in the later case there was not only an entry by mistake but also an articulated disclaimer of an intent by the entrant to claim title to lands beyond his actual boundary. FolTcman, although apparently relying on Myers, eliminated the requirement of that decision that there be expressed an affirmative disclaimer, and expanded the doctrine to exclude from the category of hostile possessors those whose entry and continued possession was under a mistaken belief that the lands taken were embraced within the description of the possessor’s deed. In so doing, the former Court of Errors and Appeals aligned this State with that branch of a dichotomy which traces its genesis to Preble v. Main Cent. R. Co., 85 Me. 260, 27 A. 149, 21 L. R. A. 829 (Sup. Jud. Ct. Me. 1893) and has become known as the Maine doctrine. In Prelle, the court said at 27 A. at p. 150:

“There is every presumption that the occupancy is in subordination to the true title, and, if the possession is claimed to be adverse, the act of the wrongdoer must be strictly construed, and the character of the possession clearly shown. Roberts v. Richards, 84 *384Me. 1, 24 A. 425, and authorities cited. ‘The intention of the possessor to claim adversely,” says Mellon, C. J., in Ross v. Gould, supra, [5 Me. 204], ‘is an essential ingredient in disseisin.’ And in Worcester v. Lord, supra [56 Me. 266], the court says: ‘To make a disseisin in fact, there must be an intention on the part of the party assuming-possession to assert title in himself.’ Indeed, the authorities all agree that this intention of the occupant to claim the ownership of land not embraced in his title is a necessary element of adverse possession; and in case of occupancy by mistake beyond a line capable of being ascertained this intention to claim title to the extent of the occupancy must appear to be absolute, and not conditional; otherwise the possession will not be deemed adverse to the true owner. It must be an intention to claim title to all land within a certain boundary on the face of the earth, wlfether it shall eventually be found to be the correct one or not. If, for instance, one in ignorance of his actual boundaries takes and holds possession by mistake up to a certain fence beyond his limits, upon the claim and in the belief that it is the true line, with the intention to claim title, and thus, if necessary, to acquire ‘title by possession’ up to that fence, such possession, having the requisite duration and continuity, will ripen into title. Hitehings v. Morrison, 72 Me. 331, is a pertinent illustration of this principle. See, also, Abbott v. Abbott, 51 Me. 575; Ricker v. Hibbard, 73 Me. 105.

If, on the other hand, a party through ignorance, inadvertence, or mistake occupies up to a given fence beyond his actual boundary, because he believes it to be the true line, but has no intention to claim title to that extent if it should be ascertained that the fence was on his neighbor’s land, an indispensable element of adverse possession is wanting. In such a ease the intent to claim title exists only upon the condition that the fence is on the true line. The intention is not absolute, but provisional, and the possession is not adverse.”

This thesis, it is evident, rewards the possessor who entered with a premeditated and predesigned “hostility” — the intentional wrongdoer and disfavors an honest, mistaken entrant. 3 American Law of Properly (Casner ed. 1952), § 104, pp. 773, 785; Bordwell, “Disseisin and Adverse Possession,” 33 Yale L. J. 1, 154 (1923); Darling, “Adverse Possession in Boundary Cases,” 19 Ore. L. Rev. 117 (1940); Sternberg, “The Element of Hostility in Adverse Possession,” 6 Temp. L. Q. 206 (1932); Annotation, “Adverse possession involving ignorance or mistake as to boundaries — modern views,” 80 A. L. R. 2d 1171 (1961). The other branch of the dichotomy relies upon French v. Pearce, 8 Conn. 439 (Sup. Ct. Conn. 1831). The court said *385in Pearce on the question of the subjective hostility of a possessor, at pp. 442, 445-446:

“Into the recesses of his [the adverse claimant’s] mind, his motives or purposes, his guilt or innocence, no enquiry is made. “ * *

<« * H? ❖ * s’: #

* * The very nature of the act [entry and possession] is an assertion of his own title, and the denial of the title of all others. It matters not that the possessor was mistaken, and had he been better informed, would not have entered on the land.” 8 Conn, at 442, 445-46.

The Maine doctrine has been the subject of much criticism in requiring a knowing wrongful taking. The criticism of the Maine and the justification of the Connecticut branch of the dichotomy is well stated in 6 Powell, Real Property (1969) ¶ 1015, pp. 725-728:

“Do the facts of his possession, and of his conduct as if he were the owner, make immaterial his mistake, or does such a mistake prevent the existence of the prerequisite claim of right. The leading case holding the mistake to be of no importance was French v. Pearce, decided in Connecticut in 1831. * * * This viewpoint has gained increasingly widespread acceptance. The more subjectively oriented view regards the ‘mistake’ as necessarily preventing the existence of the required claim of right. The leading case on this position is Preble v. Maine Central R. R., decided in 1893. This position is still followed in a few states. It has been strongly criticized as unsound historically, inexpedient practically, and as resulting in better treatment for a ruthless wrongdoer than for the honest landowner. * * * On the whole the law is simplified, in the direction of real justice, by a following of the Connecticut leadership on this point.”

Again, 4 Tiffany, Real Property (3d ed. 1939), § 1159, pp. 47A-475, criticizes the employment of mistake as negating hostility as follows:

“* * * Adopting this view, it is only in so far as the courts, which assert the possible materiality of the mistake, recognize a contrary presumption, of an intention on the part of the wrongful possessor not to claim title if he is mistaken as to the boundary, that the assertion of the materiality of mistake as to boundary becomes of substantial importance. That the presumption is properly in favor of *386the adverse or hostile character of the possession rather than against it has been previously argued, but whatever presumption in this regard may be recognized, the introduction of the element of mistake in the discussion of the question of adverse possession is, it is submitted, unnecessary and undesirable. In no case except in that of a mistake as to boundary has the element of mistake been regarded as having any significance, and there is no reason for attributing greater weight thereto when the mistake is as to the proper location of a boundary than when it is a mistake as to the title to all the land wrongfully possessed. And to introduce the element of mistake, and then limit its significance by an inquiry as to the intention which the possessor may have as to his course of action in ease there should be a mistake, an intention which has ordinarily no existence whatsoever, is calculated only to cause confusion without, it is conceived, any compensating advantage.”

Our Appellate Division in Predham v. Holfester, 32 N. J. Super. 419 (App. Div. 1954) although acknowledging that the Maine doctrine had been severely criticized felt obliged because of siare decisis to adhere thereto. See also Rullis v. Jacobi, 79 N. J. Super. 525, 528 (Ch. Div. 1963).

We are in accord with the criticism of the Maine doctrine and favor the Connecticut doctrine for the above quoted reasons. As far as can be seen, overruling the former rule will not result in undermining any of the values which stare decisis is intended to foster. The theory of reliance, a cornerstone of siare decisis, is not here apt, as the problem is which of two mistaken parties is entitled to land. Realistically, the true owner does not rely upon entry of the possessor by mistake as a reason for not seeking to recover possession. Whether or not the entry is caused by mistake or intent, the same result eventuates — the true owner is ousted from possession. In either event his neglect to seek recovery of possession, within the requisite time, is in all probability the result of a lack of knowledge that he is being deprived of possession of lands to which he has title.

Accordingly, we discard the requirement that the entry and continued possession must be accompanied by a knowing intentional hostility and hold that any entry and possession for the required time which is exclusive, continuous, uninterrupted, visible and notorious, even though *387under mistaken claim of title, is sufficient to support a claim of title by adverse possession.

However, this conclusion is not dispositive of the matter sub judice. Of equal importance under the present factual complex, is the question of whether defendant’s acts meet the necessary standard of “open and notorious” possession. It must not be forgotten that the foundation of so-called “title by adverse possession” is the failure of the true owner to commence an action for the recovery of the land involved, within the period designated by the statute of limitations. The justifications for the doctrine are aptly stated in 4 Tiffany, Beal Property (3d ed. 1939) § 1134, p. 406 as follows:

“The desirability oí fixing, by law, a definite period within which claims to land must be asserted has been generally recognized, among the practical considerations in favor of such a policy being the prevention of the making of illegal claims after the evidence necessary to defeat them has been lost, and the interest which the community as a whole has in the security, of title. The moral justification of the policy lies in the consideration that one who has reason to know that land belonging to him is in the possession of another, and neglects, for a considerable period of time, to assert his right thereto, may properly be penalized by his preclusion from thereafter asserting such right. It is, apparently, by reason of the demerit of the true owner, rather than any supposed merit in the person who has acquired wrongful possession of the land, that this possession, if continued for the statutory period, operates to debar the former owner of all right to recover the land.”

See also 5 Thompson, Real Property (1957 Replacement), 497.

In order to afford the true owner the opportunity to learn of the adverse claim and to protect his rights by legal action within the time specified by the statute, the adverse possession must be visible and notorious. In 4 Tiffany, supra (Supp. 1969, at 291), the character of possession for that purpose, is stated to be as follows:

“* * * it must be public and based on physical facts, including known and visible lines and boundaries. Acts of dominion over the *388land must be so open and notorious as to put an ordinarily prudent person on notice that the land is in actual possession of another. Hence, title may never be acquired by mere possession, however long continued, which is surreptitious or secret or which is not such as will give unmistakable notice of the nature of the occupant’s claim.”

See also 5 Thompson, supra, § 2546; 6 Powell, Real Property, ¶ 1013 (1969).

Generally, where possession of the land is clear and unequivocal and to such an extent as to be immediately visible, the owner may be presumed to have knowledge of the adverse occupancy. In Foulke v. Bond, 41 N. J. L. 527, 545 (E. & A. 1879), the court said:

“Notoriety of the adverse claim under which possession is held, is a necessary constituent of title by adverse possession, and therefore the occupation or possession must be of that nature that the real owner is presumed to have hnoivn that there was a possession adverse to his title, under which it was intended to make title against him.” (Emphasis supplied)

However, when the encroachment of an adjoining owner is of a small area and the fact of an intrusion is not clearly and self-evidently apparent to the naked eye but requires an on-site survey for certain disclosure as in urban sections where the division line is only infrequently delineated by any monuments, natural or artificial, such a presumption is fallacious and unjustified. See concurring opinion of Judge (now Justice) Francis in Predham v. Holfester, 32 N. J. Super. 419, 428-429. (App. Div. 1954). The precise location of the dividing line is then ordinarily unknown to either adjacent owner and there is nothing on the land itself to show by visual observation that a hedge, fence, wall or other structure encroaches on the neighboring land to a minor extent. Therefore, to permit a presumption of notice to arise in the case of minor border encroachments not exceeding several feet would fly in the face of reality and require the true owner to be on constant alert for possible small encroachments. The only method of certain determination *389■would be by obtaining a survey each time the adjacent owner undertook any improvement at or near the boundary, and this would place an undue and inequitable burden upon the true owner. Accordingly we hereby hold that no presumption of knowledge arises from a minor encroachment along a common boundary. In such a case, only where the true owner has actual knowledge thereof may it be said that the possession is open and notorious.

It is conceivable that the application of the foregoing rule may in some cases result in undue hardship to the adverse possessor who under an innocent and mistaken belief of title has undertaken an extensive improvement which to some extent encroaches on an adjoining property. In that event the situation falls within the category of those cases of which Riggie v. Skill, 9 N. J. Super. 372 (Ch. Div. 1950), affirmed 7 N. J. 268 (1951) is typical and equity may furnish relief. Then, if the innocent trespasser of a small portion of land adjoining a boundary line cannot without great expense remove or eliminate the encroachment, or such removal or elimination is impractical or could be accomplished only with great hardship, the true owner may be forced to convey the land so occupied upon payment of the fair value thereof without regard to whether the true owner had notice of the encroachment at its inception. Of course, such a result should eventuate only under appropriate circumstances and where no serious damage would be done to the remaining land as, for instance, by rendering the balance of the parcel unusable or no longer capable of being built upon by reason of zoning or other restrictions.

We remand the case for trial of the issues (1) whether the true owner had actual knowledge of the encroachment, (2) if not, whether plaintiffs should be obliged to convey the disputed tract to defendant, and (3) if the answer to the latter question is in the affirmative, what consideration should be paid for the conveyance. The remand, of course, contemplates further discovery and a new pretrial.

Remanded for trial in accordance with the foregoing.

*390For remandment — Chief Justice Weintraub and Justices Jacobs, Erancis, Proctor, Hall and Haneman — 6.

Opposed — Hone.

Jasen, J.

The parties own adjoining farm lands in the Town of Deposit, Delaware County. A 10-acre parcel of vacant land lying between their properties is the subject of this action to establish title pursuant to article 15 of the Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law.

After a trial without a jury, the County Court adjudged that neither party had established title by deed, that the plaintiff failed to establish title by adverse possession and, implicitly at least, that the defendant was entitled to possession. The Appellate Division unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts, and directed judgment for the plaintiff on the ground that title by adverse possession had been shown. The defendant’s appeal is before us as of right. (CPLR 5601, subd. [a].)

Acquisition of title by adverse possession derives historically from the early English statutes limiting actions to recover land. Truly Statutes of Limitation, their purpose was ‘ ‘ for quieting of men’s estates, and avoiding of suits (Statute of Limitations, 21 Jac. I, ch. 16). The necessary effect, by barring the real owner’s right to recover his property, is, of course, to extinguish his title and make absolute the wrongful possessor’s.

Actual possession adverse to the true owner for the statutory period is required before title will vest. In qualifying the character of the possession required at common law, it is usually said that it must be hostile and under claim of right, actual, open and notorious, exclusive and continuous. (E.g., Belotti v. Bickhardt, 228 N. Y. 296, 302.) Reduced to its essentials, this means nothing more than that there must be possession in fact of a type that would give the owner a cause of action in ejectment against the occupier throughout the prescriptive period. (See, generally, 3 American Law of Property, § 15.3.) To be sure, there are additional statutory requirements as well, whether the possession is under written instrument (Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law, §§ 511, 512) or under claim of title not written (§§ 521, 522).

In the case before -us, we find ample support in the record for the conclusion reached by the Appellate Division that the common-law requirements for acquisition of title by adverse pos*637session were satisfied. There was testimony that from about 1945 or 1946 to 1961, the 10-acre parcel had been in continuous farming use under the direction and control of plaintiff’s predecessors, in conjunction with their tenancy and then ownership of the adjoining parcel. There was additional testimony that when they purchased the adjoining parcel in 1956, the boundary lines, as pointed out, included the disputed 10 acres. The testimony of the attorney for the estate from which they purchased tendedlo confirm this. The plaintiff also accounted for use of the disputed land following his purchase in 1961. He testified that the land was posted and rented to a hunting club and that a part was rented for pasturage and haying. Also, there was evidence of fencing and substantial enclosure in conjunction with all these uses, thus satisfying the statute. (Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law, § 512.)

Because the plaintiff was in possession for less than 15 years,* it was necessary for him to tack his adverse possession to that of his predecessor to satisfy the applicable statutory period. (Former Civ. Prac. Act, § 34.) The question arises whether this was proper because the parcel adversely possessed was not within the description of the deed to the plaintiff.

The rule is that successive adverse possessions of property omitted from a deed description, especially contiguous property, may be tacked if it appears that the adverse possessor intended to and actually turned over possession of the undescribed part with the portion of the land included in the deed. (Belotti v. Bickhardt, 228 N. Y. 296, 303, 308, supra; Adverse Possession — Tacking, Ann., 17 ALR 2d 1128, 1131-1132; 3 Ajnerican Law of Property, § 15.10.) Because the possessory title is entirely an incident of the adverse holder’s possession, transfer of that possession, even by parol, effects a transfer of the possessory interest. (3 American Law of Property, § 15.10.) The circumstances of this case are entirely consistent with a finding that plaintiff’s predecessors intended to and actually turned over their possessory interest in the 10-acre parcel. Hence, the tacking was proper.

*638Accordingly, the order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Gabbielli, Jones, Wachtleb, Babin and Stevens concur.

Order affirmed, with costs.

Appeal from an amended order of the Supreme Court, Ontario County (Frederick G. Reed, A.J.), entered November 16, 2009. The amended order, among other things, awarded plaintiffs a portion of defendants’ land.

It is hereby ordered that the amended order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: In this action to quiet title by adverse possession, defendants appeal from an amended order entered following a bench trial awarding plaintiffs a portion of land (hereafter, disputed property) previously purchased by defendants Gordon Baker and Esther Baker. According to defendants, plaintiffs failed to meet their burden of establishing by clear and convincing evidence that, inter alia, their possession of the disputed *1289property was open and notorious (see Walling v Przybylo, 7 NY3d 228, 232 [2006]; West Middlebury Baptist Church v Koester, 50 AD3d 1494 [2008]). Defendants contend that, among other reasons, a hedgerow screened or obscured plaintiffs’ possessory actions. We reject that contention. The record establishes that, during the required period of adverse possession, plaintiffs erected a shed, constructed and reconfigured a stone wall, refurbished a swing set, planted and fertilized grass, and regularly mowed the lawn (see West v Tilley, 33 AD2d 228, 230 [1970], lv denied 27 NY2d 481 [1970]; see also Ray v Beacon Hudson Mtn. Corp., 88 NY2d 154, 160 [1996]; Villani v Holton, 50 AD3d 1543 [2008]; Gorman v Hess, 301 AD2d 683 [2003]). We thus conclude that “even a casual inspection by [the record owner] ... of the boundary lines of the property . . . would have revealed [plaintiffs’] occupation and use” of the disputed property (West, 33 AD2d at 230).

Inasmuch as defendants tacitly concede, and the record establishes, that plaintiffs’ possession and use of the disputed property was also actual, exclusive, and continuous for the required period of at least 10 years (see generally Walling, 7 NY3d at 232), a presumption of hostility under a claim of right arose, satisfying the remaining element of a cause of action for adverse possession (see DeRosa v DeRosa, 58 AD3d 794, 796 [2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 710 [2009]; Parsons v Hollingsworth, 259 AD2d 1054 [1999]). We conclude that defendants failed to rebut the presumption (see Merget v Westbury Props., LLC, 65 AD3d 1102, 1104-1105 [2009]; Parsons, 259 AD2d at 1054; see generally Walling, 7 NY3d at 232-233). “[Défendants’] analysis focuses far too much on [plaintiffs’] state of mind, i.e., what they knew or reasonably should have known by virtue of deed descriptions [and] survey maps . . . and far too little on [plaintiffs’] actions” (Birkholz v Wells, 272 AD2d 665, 666 [2000]).

Under the version of the RPAPL in effect on June 13, 2008, when plaintiffs’ summons and complaint were filed, plaintiffs were also required to show that the disputed property was “usually cultivated or improved” (RPAPL 522 [former (1)]), or “protected by a substantial inclosure” (RPAPL 522 [former (2)]). Defendants err in contending that we should apply the current version of the RPAPL rather than that former version. Indeed, it is of no moment that the current version lacks a requirement of usual cultivation or improvement (see RPAPL 522 [1]), and deems permissive and nonadverse certain “de minimus non-structural encroachments including, but not limited to, fences, hedges, shrubbery, plantings, [and] sheds” *1290(RPAPL 543 [1]), as well as “the acts of lawn mowing or similar maintenance” (RPAPL 543 [2]). As we concluded in Franza v Olin (73 AD3d 44, 47 [2010]), “where title has vested by adverse possession, it may not be disturbed retroactively by newly-enacted or amended legislation ....’’ We further noted in Franza that the 2008 amendments “define[d] as ‘permissive and non-adverse’ . actions that, under the prior statutory law and long-standing principles of common law, were sufficient to obtain title by adverse possession” (id.). Thus, applying the former version of the RPAPL, we note that “[t]he type of cultivation or improvement sufficient under the statute will vary with the character, condition, location and potential uses for the property . . . and need only be consistent with the nature of the property so as to indicate exclusive ownership” (City of Tonawanda v Ellicott Cr. Homeowners Assn., 86 AD2d 118, 121-122 [1982], appeal dismissed 58 NY2d 824 [1983]; see Ray, 88 NY2d at 159-160), and here plaintiffs established that they “usually cultivated or improved” the disputed property in accordance with the nature of the property (see Franza, 73 AD3d at 47; West Middlebury Baptist Church, 50 AD3d at 1495; Villani, 50 AD3d at 1543; Gorman, 301 AD2d at 684-685).

As a final matter, we conclude that Supreme Court’s measurement of the dimensions of the disputed property is supported by the record (see generally Matter of City of Syracuse Indus. Dev. Agency [Alterm, Inc.], 20 AD3d 168, 170 [2005]). Present— Centra, J.P., Fahey, Peradotto, Sconiers and Gorski, JJ.

OPINION OF THE COURT

G.B. Smith, J.

This appeal arises from an action to quiet title by adverse possession. Because actual knowledge that another person is the title owner does not, in and of itself, defeat a claim of right by an adverse possessor, we affirm the order of the Appellate Division awarding summary judgment to plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs and defendants are owners of adjoining residential lots, 22 and 23, located in the Town of Queensbury, County of Warren, New York. The disputed portion of the land is on the northern border of lot 23.

In January 1986, plaintiffs, the Wallings, purchased lot 22 on Butternut Hill Drive. In 1989, the Przybylos purchased lot 23. Both lots were unimproved land on which the parties built homes and swimming pools. On lot 22, the plaintiffs also built a small shed. Even though the defendants purchased their land in 1989, they did not construct their residence until 1991 and did not obtain a certificate of occupancy and move in until May 1994.

In May 1987, plaintiffs bulldozed and deposited fill and topsoil on defendants’ northerly side yard, including the disputed parcel, dug a trench and installed PVC pipe for the purpose of carrying water from plaintiffs’ eaves and downspouts to and *231under the disputed parcel, ultimately discharging the water in and over the disputed parcel. Also prior to defendants’ arrival, plaintiffs constructed an underground dog wire fence to enclose their dog and continuously mowed, graded, raked, planted, and watered the grassy area in dispute. Also, on this portion of the land, the plaintiff installed 69 feet of four-inch PVC pipe in such a way that all of the pipe ran underground but finally surfaced within a “swale.” Defendants admit that the lawn was in part cultivated before they moved in. In 1992, plaintiffs dug a hole near the northwesterly corner of the grassy part of the disputed territory and placed in it a post approximately 10 feet long on which they affixed a birdhouse. Since 1992, the post and birdhouse have remained in place.

In 2004, defendants had the land surveyed and discovered that they had title to the disputed portion of the land. Upon learning of this, plaintiffs brought an action to quiet title. On September 16, 2004, the Warren County Court granted plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment quieting title to the land. The court stated:

“Based on the facts of this case, it is clear that plaintiffs, as adverse users, entered upon the disputed parcel of property in 1986 under the misapprehension that the parcel was part of their land. Although not conceded by the defendants, it appears that each party was mutually mistaken as to the true location of the boundary line. Plaintiffs cultivated the parcel by having various excavation work performed on said property, by having topsoil installed and by establishing and maintaining a lawn on a significant portion of the dispute [d] parcel, a use consistent with the nature and character of the parcel. Surprisingly, defendants do not allege to have ever mowed the disputed parcel of property at any time.”

On December 15, 2004, after a motion to renew, the motion court modified its decision by denying summary judgment to the plaintiffs. Based upon an affidavit by the previous owner of lot 22, and the 1986 survey of plaintiffs’ property, the motion court found that there were triable issues of fact as to whether plaintiffs had actual knowledge of the true owners prior to making improvements on the land. The Appellate Division modified the order of County Court by reversing the denial of summary judgment to the plaintiffs and granting that motion. The Appel*232late Division determined: “In the absence of an overt acknowledgment, our courts have recognized since Humbert v Trinity Church [24 Wend 587 (1840)], that an adverse possessor’s claim of right or ownership will not be defeated by mere knowledge that another holds legal title” (24 AD3d 1, 4 [3d Dept 2005] [citation omitted]).

Adverse possession must be proven by clear and convincing evidence (Ray v Beacon Hudson Mtn. Corp., 88 NY2d 154, 159 [1996]). “Where there has been an actual continued occupation of premises under a claim of title, exclusive of any other right, but not founded upon a written instrument or a judgment or decree, the premises so actually occupied, and no others, are deemed to have been held adversely” (RPAPL 521).

To establish a claim of adverse possession, the following five elements must be proved: Possession must be (1) hostile and under claim of right; (2) actual; (3) open and notorious; (4) exclusive; and (5) continuous for the required period (Belotti v Bickhardt, 228 NY 296, 302 [1920]; see also Van Valkenburgh v Lutz, 304 NY 95, 99 [1952]; Spiegel v Ferraro, 73 NY2d 622, 624 [1989]; Ray v Beacon Hudson Mtn. Corp., 88 NY2d at 159). Here the required period is at least 10 years (see Ray at 159).

Plaintiffs possessed the disputed parcel of land as early as 1986 in an open and notorious manner, hostile to the interests of the title owners and continuously for 20 years, 10 of which occurred after defendants moved into their residence. “The ultimate element in the rise of a title through adverse possession is the acquiescence of the real owner in the exercise of an obvious adverse or hostile ownership through the statutory period” (see Monnot v Murphy, 207 NY 240, 245 [1913]). It was not until April 21, 2004, close to 10 years after moving into the house and almost 15 years after purchasing the property, that defendants sought to assert their rights over the disputed parcel. The failure to assert their rights in a timely manner prevents defendants from prevailing on this appeal.

Defendants argue that there is no claim of right when the adverse possessor has actual knowledge of the true owner at the time of possession. However, longstanding decisional law does not support this position. The adverse possessor must act under claim of right (see Van Valkenburgh). By definition, a claim of right is adverse to the title owner and also in opposition to the rights of the true owner. Conduct will prevail over knowledge, particularly when the true owners have acquiesced in the *233exercise of ownership rights by the adverse possessors (see Monnot v Murphy, supra). The fact that adverse possession will defeat a deed even if the adverse possessor has knowledge of the deed is not new (see Humbert v Rector, Churchwardens & Vestrymen of Trinity Church, 24 Wend 587, 604 [1840] [“Possession by the defendant with a claim of title for twenty years, can no more be answered by averring that he knew he was wrong, than could the bar of two years, in slander, by the known falsehood of the libel for which it is prosecuted”]). The issue is “actual occupation,” not subjective knowledge (see id. [emphasis omitted]).

“Adverse possession, although not a favored method of procuring title, is a recognized one. It is a necessary means of clearing disputed titles and the courts adopt it and enforce it, because, when adverse possession is carefully and fully proven, it is a means of settling disputed titles and this is desirable” (Belotti v Bickhardt, 228 NY at 308; see generally Hindley v Manhattan Ry. Co., 185 NY 335, 355-356 [1906]).

The facts of Van Valkenburgh v Lutz (304 NY at 99-100) are distinguishable. In Van Valkenburgh, defendant admitted that he was aware of the rightful owner at the time that he built his shed on the disputed property (see 304 NY 95, 99 [1952]). Defendants point to this and other language in Van Valkenburgh that may seem inconsistent with our holding here. We do not, however, read Van Valkenburgh as contradicting the principle, well established since the nineteenth century, that an adverse possessor’s actual knowledge of the true owner is not fatal to an adverse possession claim. The Van Valkenburgh court mentioned several bases for its holding, and any perhaps mistaken dictum in that case did not change the law as Humbert, Monnot and other cases previously stated it.

The evidence in this case was sufficient to establish title by adverse possession and to grant summary judgment to plaintiffs.

Accordingly, the order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs. The certified question should not be answered upon the ground that it is unnecessary.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Ciparick, Rosenblatt, Graffeo, Read and R.S. Smith concur.

Order affirmed, etc.

*394Pearson, J.

Land surveying is an ancient art but not one free of the errors that often creep into the affairs of men. In this case, we are presented with the question of what happens when the descriptions in deeds do not fit the land the deed holders are occupying. Defendants appeal from a decree quieting title in the plaintiffs of a tract of land on the shore of Hood Canal in Mason County.

At least as long ago as 1932 the record tells us that one McCall resided in the house now occupied by the appellant-defendants, Kunto. McCall bad a deed that described a 50-foot-wide parcel on the shore of Hood Canal. The error1 that brings this case before us is that the 50 feet described in the deed is not the same 50 feet upon which McCall’s house stood. Rather, the described land is an adjacent 50-foot lot directly west of that upon which the house stood. In other words, McCall’s house stood on one lot and his deed described the adjacent lot.2 Several property owners to the west of defendants, not parties to this action, are similarly situated.

Over the years since 1946, several conveyances occurred, using the same legal description and accompanied by a transfer of possession to the succeeding occupants. The Kuntos’ immediate predecessors in interest, Millers, desired to build a dock. To this end, they had a survey performed which indicated that the deed description and the physical occupation were in conformity. Several boundary stakes were placed as a result of this survey and the dock was constructed, as well as other improvements. The house as *395well as the others in the area continued to be used as summer recreational retreats.

The Kuntos then took possession of the disputed property under a deed from the Millers in 1959. In 1960 the respondent-plaintiffs, Howard, who held land east of that of the Kuntos, determined to convey an undivided one-half interest in their land to the Yearlys. To this end, they undertook to have a survey of the entire area made. After expending considerable effort, the surveyor retained by the Howards discovered that according to the government survey, the deed descriptions and the land occupancy of the parties did not coincide. Between the Howards and the Kuntos lay the Moyers’ property. When the Howards’ survey was completed, they discovered that they were the record owners of the land occupied by the Moyers and that the Moyers held record title to the land occupied by the Kuntos. Howard approached Moyer and in return for a conveyance of the land upon which the Moyers’ house stood, Moyer conveyed to the Howards record title to the land upon which the Kunto house stood. Until plaintiffs Howard obtained the conveyance from Moyer in April, 1960, neither Moyer nor any of his predecessors ever asserted any right to ownership of the property actually being possessed by Kunto and his predecessors. This action was then instituted to quiet title in the Howards and Yearlys. The Kuntos appeal from a trial court decision granting this remedy.

At the time this action was commenced on August 19, I960,3 defendants had been in occupance of the disputed property less than a year. The trial court’s reason for denying their claim of adverse possession is succinctly stated in its memorandum opinion: “In this instance, defendants *396have failed to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, a continuity of possession or estate to permit tacking of the adverse possession of defendants to the possession of their predecessors.”

Finding of fact 64, which is challenged by defendants, incorporates the above concept and additionally finds defendant’s possession not to have been “continuous” because it involved only “summer occupancy.”

Two issues are presented by this appeal:

(1) Is a claim of adverse possession defeated because the physical use of the premises is restricted to summer occupancy?

(2) May a person who receives record title to tract A under the mistaken belief that he has title to tract B (immediately contiguous to tract A) and who subsequently occupies tract B, for the purpose of establishing title to tract B by adverse possession, use the periods of possession of tract B by his immediate predecessors who also had record title to tract A?

In approaching both of these questions, we point out that the evidence, largely undisputed in any material sense, es*397tablished that defendant or his immediate predecessors did occupy the premises, which we have called tract B, as though it was their own for far more than the 10 years as prescribed in RCW 4.16.020.5

We also point out that finding of fact 6 is not challenged for its factual determinations but for the conclusions contained therein to the effect that the continuity of possession may not be established by summer occupancy, and that a predecessor’s possession may not be tacked because a legal “claim of right” did not exist under the circumstances.

We start with the oft-quoted rule that:

[T]o constitute adverse possession, there must be actual possession which is uninterrupted, open and notorious, hostile and exclusive, and under a claim of right made in good faith for the statutory period.

(Italics ours.) Butler v. Anderson, 71 Wn.2d 60, 64, 426 P.2d 467 (1967). Also see Fadden v. Purvis, 77 W.D.2d 22, 459 P.2d 385 (1969) and cases cited therein.

We reject the conclusion that summer occupancy only of a summer beach home destroys the continuity of possession required by the statute. It has become firmly established that the requisite possession requires such possession and dominion “as ordinarily marks the conduct of owners in general, in holding, managing, and caring for property of like nature and condition.” Whalen v. Smith, 183 Iowa 949, 953, 167 N.W. 646 (1918). Also see Mesher v. Connolly, 63 Wn.2d 552, 388 P.2d 144 (1964); Skoog v. Seymour, 29 Wn.2d 355, 187 P.2d 304 (1947); Butler v. Anderson, supra; Fadden v. Purvis, supra.

We hold that occupancy of tract B during the summer *398months for more than the 10-year period by defendant and his predecessors, together with the continued existence of the improvements on the land and beach area, constituted “uninterrupted” possession within this rule. To hold otherwise is to completely ignore the nature and condition of the property. See Fadden v. Purvis, supra.

We find such rule fully consonant with the legal writers on the subject. In F. Clark, Law of Surveying and Boundaries, § 561 (3d ed. 1959) at 565: “Continuity of possession may be established although the land is used regularly for only a certain period each year.” Further, at page 566:

This rule [which permits tacking] is one of substance and not of absolute mathematical continuity, provided there is no break so as to sever two possessions. It is not necessary that the occupant should be actually upon the premises continually. If the land is occupied during the period of time during the year it is capable of use, there is sufficient continuity.

We now reach the question of tacking. The precise issue before us is novel in that none of the property occupied by defendant or his predecessors coincided with the property described in their deeds, but was contiguous.

In the typical case, which has been subject to much litigation, the party seeking to establish title by adverse possession claims more land than that described in the deed. In such cases it is clear that tacking is permitted.

In Buchanan v. Cassell, 53 Wn.2d 611, 614, 335 P.2d 600 (1959) the Supreme Court stated:

This state follows the rule that a purchaser may tack the adverse use of its predecessor in interest to that of his own where the land was intended to be included in the deed between them, but was mistakenly omitted from the description.

El Cerrito, Inc. v. Ryndak, 60 Wn.2d 847, 376 P.2d 528 (1962).

The general statement which appears in many of the cases is that tacking of adverse possession is permitted if the successive occupants are in “privity.” See Faubion v. Elder, 49 Wn.2d 300, 301 P.2d 153 (1956). The deed running *399between the parties purporting to transfer the land possessed traditionally furnishes the privity of estate which connects the possession of the successive occupants. Plaintiff contends, and the trial court ruled, that where the deed does not describe any of the land which was occupied, the actual transfer of possession is insufficient to establish privity.

To assess the cogency of this argument and ruling, we must turn to the historical reasons for requiring privity as a necessary prerequisite to tacking the possession of several occupants. Very few, if any, of the reasons appear in the cases, nor do the cases analyze the relationships that must exist between successive possessors for tacking to be allowed. See W. Stoebuck, The Law of Adverse Possession In Washington in 35 Wash. L. Rev. 53 (1960).

The requirement of privity had its roots in the notion that a succession of trespasses, even though there was no appreciable interval between them, should not, in equity, be allowed to defeat the record title. The “claim of right,” “color of title” requirement of the statutes and cases was probably derived from the early American belief that the squatter should not be able to profit by his trespass.6

However, it appears to this court that there is a substantial difference between the squatter or trespasser and the property purchaser, who along with several of his neighbors, as a result of an inaccurate survey or subdivision,7 occupies and improves property exactly 50 feet to the east of that which a survey some 30 years later demonstrates that they in fact own. It seems to us that there is also a strong public policy favoring early certainty as to the location of land ownership which enters into a proper interpretation of privity.

On the irregular perimeters of Puget Sound exact deter*400mination of land locations and boundaries is difficult and expensive. This difficulty is convincingly demonstrated in this case by the problems plaintiff’s engineer encountered in attempting to locate the corners. It cannot be expected that every purchaser will or should engage a surveyor to ascertain that the beach home he is purchasing lies within the boundaries described in his deed. Such a practice is neither reasonable nor customary. Of course, 50-foot errors in descriptions are devastating where a group of adjacent owners each hold 50 feet of waterfront property.

The technical requirement of “privity” should not, we think, be used to upset the long periods of occupancy of those who in good faith received an erroneous deed description. Their “claim of right” is no less persuasive than the purchaser who believes he is purchasing more land than his deed described.

In the final analysis, however, we believe the requirement of “privity” is no more than judicial recognition of the need for some reasonable connection between successive occupants of real property so as to raise their claim of right above the status of the wrongdoer or the trespasser. We think such reasonable connection exists in this case.

Where, as here, several successive purchasers received record title to tract A under the mistaken belief that they were acquiring tract B, immediately contiguous thereto, and where possession of tract B is transferred and occupied in a continuous manner for more than 10 years by successive occupants, we hold there is sufficient privity of estate to permit tacking and thus establish adverse possession as a matter of law.

We see no reason in law or in equity for differentiating this case from Faubion v. Elder, 49 Wn.2d 300, 301 P.2d 153 (1956) where the appellants were claiming more land than their deed described and where successive periods of occupation were allowed to be united to each other to make up the time of adverse holding. To the same effect see Naher v. Farmer, 60 Wash. 600, 111 P. 768 (1910), and cases cited therein; Buchanan v. Cassell, 53 Wn.2d 611, 335 P.2d 600 *401(1959) and cases cited therein; El Cerrito, Inc. v. Ryndak, 60 Wn.2d 847, 376 P.2d 528 (1962); See 17 A.L.R.2d 1128 (1951). This application of the privity requirement should particularly pertain where the holder of record title to tract B acquired the same with knowledge of the discrepancy.

Judgment is reversed with directions to dismiss plaintiffs’ action and to enter a decree quieting defendants’ title to the disputed tract of land in accordance with the prayer of their cross complaint.

Armstrong, C. J., and Petrie, J., concur.

Petition for rehearing denied November 2, 1970.

Review denied by Supreme Court November 25, 1970.

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Elliott Wilk, J.), entered November 13, 1995, which granted petitioners — plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction to the extent of enjoining respondents-defendants from using self-help means to remove them from the buildings during the pendency of this action, reversed, on the law, the facts, and in the exercise of discretion, without costs, the motion denied and the preliminary injunction is vacated.

The petitioners are occupants of 537, 539, 541, and 545 East 13th Street, who brought this suit to prevent the City from removing them from these buildings to implement a Federally subsidized plan to rehabilitate the buildings and create low-income housing units. A detailed recitation of the facts and procedural history of this action can be found in East 13th St. Homesteaders’ Coalition v Wright (217 AD2d 31). The narrow issue presently on appeal is whether the petitioners should be granted a preliminary injunction barring their eviction pending trial on the issue of whether legal title to the property passed to them through adverse possession.

A preliminary injunction is warranted only upon a showing *623of (1) a likelihood of success on the merits of the underlying claim; (2) irreparable injury absent granting the injunction; and (3) that a balancing of the equities weighs in favor of the injunction (Aetna Ins. Co. v Capasso, 75 NY2d 860, 862; Grant Co. v Srogi, 52 NY2d 496). Because it is a drastic remedy, injunctive relief is reserved for those cases presenting a clear legal right thereto (Matter of McGuinn v City of New York, 219 AD2d 489, lv dismissed in part and denied in part 87 NY2d 966).

Considering that the petitioners claim the apartment buildings upon a theory of adverse possession, they must show that they are likely to prove, by clear and convincing evidence (643 Coster St. Realty v Acsun Realty Co., 174 AD2d 473, 474), that for a period of ten years they actually possessed the subject property at issue, and that their possession was open and notorious, exclusive, continuous, hostile, and under claim of right (Spiegel v Ferraro, 73 NY2d 622; Garrett v Holcomb, 215 AD2d 884, 885; accord, City of Tonawanda v Ellicott Cr. Homeowners Assn., 86 AD2d 118, 120, appeal dismissed 58 NY2d 824).

Our review of the record reveals that petitioners are not likely to prove ten years of actual, continuous, open and notorious possession of the subject buildings (between 1984 and 1994, the period here in question). Since petitioners’ claim of right is not supported by a written instrument, they must show actual, not constructive, possession to establish the requisite temporal element (RPAPL 521; Van Valkenburgh v Lutz, 304 NY 95, 98; Birnbaum v Brody, 156 AD2d 408). The record contains documentary and photographic evidence that the City sealed the buildings numerous times during the claimed period, and that the occupants had to break these seals, sometimes with a sledgehammer, to reenter the buildings.

The petitioners argue that there was a chain of possession of coalition members in all of the buildings during the requisite period to support the requirement of continuous ownership, but the record does not reveal that such successive possession was continued by an unbroken chain of privity such that it could be tacked for adverse possession purposes (Garrett v Holcomb, 215 AD2d 884; Pegalis v Anderson, 111 AD2d 796; Belotti v Bickhardt, 228 NY 296, 306). In fact, there is no evidence of privity between successive occupants of the apartments, nor is there evidence of any intended transfers. In addition, some of the apartments were vacant for some period, such that the vacating occupant and the new occupant apparently had no contact at all (see, Berman v Golden, 131 AD2d 416).

*624In sharp distinction, the claimant in Ray v Beacon Hudson Mtn. Corp. (88 NY2d 154), the case relied upon in the dissent, was the same person who had occupied the property there in issue from 1963 through 1988, a period of twenty-five years. Such is not the case here, where we are presented with an oft-interrupted number of unrelated occupants.

Since petitioners have failed to demonstrate ten years of continuous possession of the subject property, a condition precedent to a claim for adverse possession, the likely success of which is evaluated on this motion, and respondents have countered with proof which persuasively weighs against the petitioners’ claims, the order appealed is reversed, and the motion for a preliminary injunction denied.

Concur — Milonas, J. P., Rosenberger, Williams and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Kupferman, J.,

dissents in a memorandum as follows: I would affirm.

In the recent case of Ray v Beacon Hudson Mtn. Corp. (88 NY2d 154, 156), Judge Titone, speaking for a unanimous Court, stated: "In determining whether the common-law requirement of 'continuity of possession’ has been met in an adverse possession claim to an estate in land, a court should consider not only the adverse possessor’s physical presence on the land but also the claimant’s other acts of dominion and control over the premises that would appropriately be undertaken by owners of properties of similar character, condition and location. Thus, we conclude that plaintiffs’ occupancy of the summer cottage in a now-defunct resort town for one month during the summer, coupled with their regular efforts taken to secure and improve the premises and to eject trespassers during their absences for the 10-year statutory period while all neighboring structures collapsed due to vandalism or abandonment, satisfied the element of continuous actual possession.”

This statement is, mutatis mutandis, substantially analogous to our current situation.

Further on in his opinion, Judge Titone states "[P]laintiffs’ installation of utilities and over-all preservation of the cottage, a permanent and substantial structure, in a veritable ghost town, for the duration of the statutory period demonstrates continuous, actual occupation of land by improvement.” (Supra, at 161.)

In the case at bar, there is no doubt that the plaintiffs made improvements and attempted to preserve the buildings involved in an area that could be considered the equivalent of a "ghost town”. Moreover, as in the Ray case, where the occupation was for only one month during the summer, we have *625intermittent occupation by various people who are a part of a cohesive group.

In 1977 and 1978, by in rem proceedings, the City acquired title to the four buildings in question. As the IAS Court found at the hearing it conducted, by the early 1980’s the buildings had become a "neighborhood hazard, housing drug activity, litter and trash”. The City having defaulted on its obligation to maintain order and ensure tranquility, the plaintiffs moved into the vacant buildings.

The City now indicates that it is prepared to gut the buildings and rehabilitate the neighborhood with private funds and Federal tax credits after having failed to do so for many years. This may be a consummation to be wished but not necessarily a firm result. In the interim, the preliminary injunctive relief granted by the IAS Court should be continued, preventing a warrant of eviction, until such time as there can be a definitive conclusion as to the claim that the plaintiffs have adverse possession.