Imagine owning a house with a sibling, former partner, or another family member.
You have a disagreement about the property. One day, you arrive and discover that the locks have been changed.
The other owner tells you that you are no longer welcome.
Can a co-owner legally lock you out of a house you both own?
Under New York law, the general answer is no. One co-owner ordinarily cannot use physical exclusion to eliminate another co-owner’s right to possess jointly owned property.
But the appropriate remedy depends on what actually happened, whether there is an existing court order, and whether the excluded owner was living at the property.
Both Co-Owners Generally Have the Right to Possess the Property
When property is owned as a tenancy in common, each co-owner generally has the right to possess and use the entire property.
That right is not limited to the owner’s percentage interest.
For example, someone who owns 25% of a house does not necessarily have the right to occupy only 25% of the rooms.
Likewise, a 75% owner does not automatically have the authority to exclude the 25% owner.
The New York Court of Appeals recognized the principle in Myers v. Bartholomew, 91 N.Y.2d 630 (1998). A co-owner’s decision not to occupy the property does not, by itself, eliminate that person’s ownership or possessory rights.
The Appellate Division explained the same principle in Corsa v. Biernacki, 2 A.D.3d 388 (2d Dep’t 2003): one co-owner may occupy and preserve the property as long as that owner does not interfere with the other’s corresponding right to occupy it.
Ownership percentages therefore do not automatically translate into greater authority to control access to the house.
Is Changing the Locks Automatically Illegal?
The important question is whether the change actually excludes someone who has a legal right to occupy the property.
Changing a damaged lock and supplying the other lawful occupants with replacement keys is different from deliberately changing the locks to prevent another owner from entering.
New York’s unlawful-eviction statute, RPAPL § 768, prohibits certain methods of removing or excluding a qualifying lawful occupant without appropriate legal authority.
The statute specifically identifies changing an entrance lock without providing the occupant with a key as prohibited conduct in the circumstances it covers.
New York City has a comparable unlawful-eviction provision, Administrative Code § 26-521.
These protections are particularly important when the excluded owner has been lawfully living in the residence.
However, the unlawful-eviction statutes have specific occupancy requirements. Ownership alone does not automatically establish that every statutory remedy applies.
Can an Excluded Co-Owner Go to Court to Regain Access?
Potentially, yes.
New York provides a procedure addressing unlawful entry and detainer under RPAPL § 713(10).
Depending on the circumstances, a co-owner who has been unlawfully excluded may seek judicial relief restoring possession.
The remedy is not necessarily exclusive possession of the property.
After all, both individuals may have legitimate ownership and possessory rights.
The appropriate result may instead involve restoring the excluded owner to shared possession.
A person pursuing this relief must establish the statutory requirements, including the necessary possessory interest and exclusion by force or unlawful means. A disagreement about who should live at the house is not automatically sufficient.
A Recent Queens Case Illustrates the Distinction
In Barnes v. Service, 2025 NY Slip Op 50762(U), decided May 14, 2025, the Queens Civil Court considered a dispute between siblings who had inherited interests in their mother’s home.
One sibling sought relief through an unlawful-detainer proceeding against the other.
The court recognized that a tenant in common could potentially maintain such a proceeding against another co-owner. It also explained that restoration to shared possession could be an appropriate remedy in a qualifying case.
Importantly, however, the court ultimately dismissed the petition.
The record did not establish the required exclusion by force or unlawful means, particularly in light of the orders of protection involved and the circumstances surrounding the claimed denial of access.
The decision illustrates two important points.
First, co-ownership does not give one person an unrestricted right to exclude another.
Second, establishing ownership does not automatically prove an unlawful lockout or establish entitlement to a particular court order.
The actual conduct, possession history, and existing judicial restrictions matter.
What If I Never Lived in the House?
The analysis can become more complicated.
A person who owns an interest in a house but has never physically lived there may still have a right to possess the property.
That right is distinct from the question of whether the person qualifies for a particular unlawful-eviction remedy.
For example, RPAPL § 768 protects occupants meeting the statute’s requirements. A co-owner who never occupied the home should not assume that the same statutory protections automatically apply merely because the person’s name appears on the deed.
Nevertheless, other legal remedies may remain available.
RPAPL § 633 addresses actions between co-tenants involving an actual ouster or another act amounting to a total denial of a co-owner’s rights.
Determining the proper remedy requires distinguishing ownership, physical occupancy, constructive possession, and actual exclusion.
Exclusion is also different from simply living in a property alone. A co-owner who occupies a house alone is not automatically liable to the other owner for rent; that generally requires an agreement or an ouster. We explain the difference in “Can I Charge My Co-Owner Rent If They Live in the Property Alone in New York?”.
What If There Is an Order of Protection?
An existing court order can materially change the analysis.
A co-owner’s property rights do not authorize conduct prohibited by a valid order of protection.
Someone whose access is restricted by a Family Court or Criminal Court order should not assume that ownership permits entry in violation of that order.
Similarly, an agreement or judicial order granting exclusive occupancy may affect the parties’ immediate rights.
The existence and precise terms of those restrictions should be reviewed before attempting to regain access.
Where Does a Partition Action Fit In?
An unlawful-lockout dispute and a partition action address different problems.
A lockout proceeding generally concerns the immediate right to possession.
A partition action concerns the longer-term problem of co-ownership when the owners cannot agree about the property.
Under RPAPL § 901, a qualifying co-owner may seek partition and, where physical division would cause great prejudice, sale of the property.
For a closer look at how these cases work, see “Partition Actions in New York: How One Owner Can Force the Sale of Property.”
That means an owner who has been excluded from a house may potentially have two separate concerns:
Regaining access to property the owner has a right to possess, and ending an ownership arrangement that has become unworkable.
A partition lawsuit is not necessarily the fastest way to address an immediate unlawful lockout.
But it may ultimately provide a way to resolve the underlying ownership dispute.
What Should an Excluded Co-Owner Do?
If a co-owner has changed the locks or otherwise denied access, the circumstances should be documented promptly.
Relevant evidence may include the deed, communications concerning access, photographs, prior keys, proof of residence, witness accounts, and any agreements or court orders affecting occupancy.
It is also important to distinguish a temporary disagreement over access from an actual exclusion.
An owner should avoid attempting to resolve the situation through threats, forced entry, retaliatory lock changes, or other conduct that could create additional legal problems.
Where immediate unlawful exclusion has occurred, obtaining legal advice promptly can help identify whether a possessory proceeding or another form of court relief is appropriate.
If the disagreement reflects a broader breakdown in co-ownership, a partition action may also warrant consideration.
The Bottom Line
One co-owner generally cannot simply change the locks and eliminate another co-owner’s right to possess jointly owned New York property.
Each tenant in common ordinarily has a right to possess the property, regardless of the percentage owned.
But the remedy for exclusion depends on the facts.
A court may need to determine whether an unlawful lockout occurred, what possessory rights existed, and whether any agreement or court order restricts access.
Where the owners can no longer agree about the property’s use, possession, or future, a New York partition action may provide a separate means of resolving the underlying ownership dispute.
Locked Out of a Property You Co-Own? Talk to Our Team
If a co-owner has changed the locks or is keeping you from property you own, don’t wait for the situation to escalate. Contact Gill & Kadochnikov P.C. at (929) 405-1054 or submit our firm’s online contact form. We can review your documents, explain your options, and help you decide whether a possessory proceeding, a partition action, or another step is right for you.
Attorney Advertising. This article is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The application of New York law depends on the facts, applicable statutes, and existing court orders.