seasonal in nature. Likewise, Labounty is distinguishable as that case dealt only with the “exclusive” requirement of adverse possession, not the “actual,” “open,” or “notorious” requirements that are at issue here. The parties disagree when the statute of limitations for adverse possession was tolled and hence, the court has found several benchmarks. It is undisputed, and the court finds, that in the summer of 2002 the discussion over the fence between the Plaintiff and the Defendants is an act that tolled the statute of limitations. Additionally, the court finds that in late fall 2001, when Sipas cleared brush and put stakes and string around the boundaries of Lot 23C, the statute of limitations was tolled. See Mendonca v. Cities Serv. Oil Co. of Pennsylvania, 354 Mass. 323 (1968) (<HOLDING>). Lastly, any dispute as to the tolling of the
holding that a new york state law requiring the owner of an apartment building to allow the installation of cable equipment on the building which amounted to a few wires and a small box on the roof constituted a taking holding that tolling of the statute of limitations was not tolled during the pendency of a claim dismissed without prejudice for want of prosecution holding that the statute of limitations is tolled during a malicious prosecution suit when a timely complaint is filed holding that the statute of limitations was tolled when owner removed fences on the parcel and used it for three or four weeks for the storage of building materials and equipment during renovation work to the buildings on his lot holding that the untimely petition in that case tolled the aedpa statute of limitations