New York Appeals Court Revives Couple’s Privacy Claim After Nearly 30-Year Property Dispute Over Tree-Line Boundary
A New York appeals court has revived a couple’s invasion-of-privacy claim against their neighbours after a decades-long property dispute escalated into allegations of surveillance cameras recording their backyard. The ruling, delivered on October 22, 2026, allows the privacy claim to proceed, although the court has not determined whether the neighbours are liable for unlawful surveillance.
Timothy J. Riley and his family purchased their home in December 1996 in the Town of Malta, Saratoga County, believing that a line of trees marked the boundary between their property and the neighbouring land. The previous owner of the adjoining property appeared to share that understanding and even helped the couple build a garage approximately 15 feet from the tree line.
The dispute intensified after the neighbouring property was sold to John C. Daly and his family in 2004. Two years later, the new owners installed a chain-link fence between the tree line and the Rileys’ garage. The Rileys believed the fence encroached on their land and subsequently erected their own fence nearby in 2011.
The disagreement eventually expanded into a dispute over approximately 230 feet of the boundary. In 2018, both households initiated legal proceedings, accusing each other of wrongful conduct involving the contested land. The Rileys sought recognition of the tree line as the established boundary, while the Dalys relied on professional land surveys to support their ownership claim.
The dispute took another turn when the Rileys alleged that surveillance cameras installed by their neighbours captured images and videos of their backyard, including their swimming pool and their minor daughter. They claimed that thousands of photographs and videos had been recorded, extending beyond the disputed strip of land into private areas of their property.
The Dalys maintained that the cameras were installed to monitor their property following alleged incidents involving trespass, theft and harassment. They denied that the surveillance was intended to target or intimidate their neighbours.
The appeals court examined the privacy claim under New York Civil Rights Law Section 52-a, which provides a potential legal remedy against certain forms of unauthorised video surveillance of recreational activities in a neighbour’s backyard. The law includes requirements concerning the location and purpose of the recording devices, the absence of written consent and the alleged intent to harass, alarm or threaten.
The lower court had dismissed the Rileys’ privacy claim. However, the Appellate Division, Third Department, concluded that the evidence and allegations warranted further examination. It therefore reinstated the claim, allowing the couple to pursue the matter through further legal proceedings. The decision does not amount to a final finding that the neighbours violated the law.
On the original property-boundary question, the appeals court did not accept the Rileys’ argument that the tree line had been conclusively established as the legal boundary through long-standing mutual recognition. Under New York law, such a boundary may be recognised in certain circumstances when adjoining owners have clearly accepted it for more than 10 years.
The court found that the evidence did not establish the required mutual agreement between the Rileys and the current neighbours. It also ruled that conflicting survey evidence raised factual questions that prevented the boundary from being conclusively settled at the summary-judgment stage. The court therefore rejected the lower court’s decision to determine the boundary solely on the basis of the Dalys’ survey.
The ruling leaves key questions about land ownership and alleged surveillance unresolved. It allows the privacy claim to continue while requiring the property-boundary dispute and related allegations to be addressed through further judicial proceedings.
