Ahearn v. Carroll

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ahearn v. Carroll

305 A.D.2d 523, 759 N.Y.S.2d 344

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMay 19, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 305 A.D.2d 523 (Ahearn v. Carroll) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ahearn v. Carroll, 305 A.D.2d 523, 759 N.Y.S.2d 344 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages under RPAPL 861 for cutting trees, the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Dillon, J.), dated September 6, 2002, as denied that branch of their motion which was for partial summary judgment on the issue of the defendants’ liability for treble damages and, searched the record and granted partial summary judgment in favor of the defendants dismissing their claim for treble damages.

Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof which searched the record and granted partial summary judgment in favor of the defendants dismissing the claim for treble damages; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs to the appellants.

The defendants chopped down a number of trees on a parcel of land owned by the plaintiffs. Triable issues of fact exist as to whether the defendants had a “good-faith reasonable belief in [their] right to harvest the trees” (Hollenbeck v Genung, 198 AD2d 677, 678-679 [1993]). Further, there are issues of fact as to whether the injury suffered by the plaintiffs through the loss of those trees was “casual and involuntary,” so as to preclude an award of treble damages against the defendants (RPAPL 861 [2] [a]; see Arnott v Franzino, 302 AD2d 415 [2003]; Myers v NYNEX Corp., 257 AD2d 898 [1999]; Bass v Catucci, 196 AD2d 802 [1993]; Cunningham v Brischke, 167 AD2d 604, 605-606 [1990]; cf. Hollenbeck v Genung, supra; Whitaker v McGee, 111 AD2d 459 [1985]). Smith, J.P., H. Miller, Cozier and Rivera, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—In an action to recover damages under RPAPL 861 for cutting trees, the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Dillon, J.), dated September 6, 2002, as denied that branch of their motion which was for partial summary judgment on the issue of the defendants’ liability for treble damages and, searched the record and granted partial summary judgment in favor of the defendants dismissing their claim for treble damages.

Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof which searched the record and granted partial summary judgment in favor of the defendants dismissing the claim for treble damages; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs to the appellants.

The defendants chopped down a number of trees on a parcel of land owned by the plaintiffs. Triable issues of fact exist as to whether the defendants had a “good-faith reasonable belief in [their] right to harvest the trees” (Hollenbeck v Genung, 198 AD2d 677, 678-679 [1993]). Further, there are issues of fact as to whether the injury suffered by the plaintiffs through the loss of those trees was “casual and involuntary,” so as to preclude an award of treble damages against the defendants (RPAPL 861 [2] [a]; see Arnott v Franzino, 302 AD2d 415 [2003]; Myers v NYNEX Corp., 257 AD2d 898 [1999]; Bass v Catucci, 196 AD2d 802 [1993]; Cunningham v Brischke, 167 AD2d 604, 605-606 [1990]; cf. Hollenbeck v Genung, supra; Whitaker v McGee, 111 AD2d 459 [1985]). Smith, J.P., H. Miller, Cozier and Rivera, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

305 A.D.2d 523, 759 N.Y.S.2d 344, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ahearn-v-carroll-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack