Blake v. Town of Greenville

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Blake v. Town of Greenville

280 A.D.2d 571, 720 N.Y.S.2d 795, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1700

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

DecidedFebruary 20, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 280 A.D.2d 571 (Blake v. Town of Greenville) 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

Blake v. Town of Greenville, 280 A.D.2d 571, 720 N.Y.S.2d 795, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1700 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for injury to property, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Peter C. Patsalos, J.), dated March 27, 2000, which granted the motion of the defendant Town of Greenville for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, and the complaint insofar as asserted against the Town of Greenville is reinstated.

The Supreme Court erred in awarding summary judgment to the defendant Town of Greenville on the ground that its conduct was not a substantial cause of the contamination to the plaintiff’s well water. The Town failed to make a prima facie showing that the chloride contamination was not substantially caused by the salt storage practices at the Town’s Department of Public Works and Town Hall (cf., Prato v Vigliotta, 253 AD2d 749). Further, the letter of the Town’s engineer to the State Department of Environmental Conservation, which admitted that the contamination is confined to the area in the immediate vicinity of the Town’s Department of Public Works [572]*572and Town Hall, raises a triable issue of fact as to whether the contamination came from the Town’s storage facility. Santucci, J. P., Altman, Luciano and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover damages for injury to property, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Peter C. Patsalos, J.), dated March 27, 2000, which granted the motion of the defendant Town of Greenville for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, and the complaint insofar as asserted against the Town of Greenville is reinstated.

The Supreme Court erred in awarding summary judgment to the defendant Town of Greenville on the ground that its conduct was not a substantial cause of the contamination to the plaintiff’s well water. The Town failed to make a prima facie showing that the chloride contamination was not substantially caused by the salt storage practices at the Town’s Department of Public Works and Town Hall (cf., Prato v Vigliotta, 253 AD2d 749). Further, the letter of the Town’s engineer to the State Department of Environmental Conservation, which admitted that the contamination is confined to the area in the immediate vicinity of the Town’s Department of Public Works [572]*572and Town Hall, raises a triable issue of fact as to whether the contamination came from the Town’s storage facility. Santucci, J. P., Altman, Luciano and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

280 A.D.2d 571, 720 N.Y.S.2d 795, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1700, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/blake-v-town-of-greenville-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack