Fifty-Five Corp. v. 10 West 66th Street Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Fifty-Five Corp. v. 10 West 66th Street Corp.

220 A.D.2d 278, 632 N.Y.S.2d 106, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10081

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

DecidedOctober 12, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 220 A.D.2d 278 (Fifty-Five Corp. v. 10 West 66th Street Corp.) 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

Fifty-Five Corp. v. 10 West 66th Street Corp., 220 A.D.2d 278, 632 N.Y.S.2d 106, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10081 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order and judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Elliott Wilk, J.), entered January 26, 1995 and February 21, 1995, respectively, which insofar as appealed from, denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs cause of action for continuing trespass, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff’s cause of action for continuing trespass was properly sustained, notwithstanding that the encroaching excavation and backfill on plaintiffs property supporting the retaining wall on defendant’s property was done with plaintiffs permission (see, Wheelock v Noonan, 108 NY 179, 183), and that the work was intended to be permanent (see, 509 Sixth Ave. Corp. v New York City Tr. Auth., 15 NY2d 48, 52), there being issues of fact whether the work violated applicable regulations (see, Cranesville Block Co. v Niagara Mohawk Power Corp., 175 AD2d 444, 446), or was completed in a manner so negligent as to create a " 'substantial certainty’ ” of harm (Phillips v Sun Oil Co., 307 NY 328, 331). Defendant’s claim of a prescription easement is improperly raised for the first time on appeal (see, Recovery Consultants v Shih-Hsieh, 141 AD2d 272, 276), and in any event appears to be without merit in the absence of proof that defendant’s use of plaintiffs property was hostile (see, Boumis v Caetano, 140 AD2d 401, 402). Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach and Tom, JJ.

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

—Order and judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Elliott Wilk, J.), entered January 26, 1995 and February 21, 1995, respectively, which insofar as appealed from, denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs cause of action for continuing trespass, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff’s cause of action for continuing trespass was properly sustained, notwithstanding that the encroaching excavation and backfill on plaintiffs property supporting the retaining wall on defendant’s property was done with plaintiffs permission (see, Wheelock v Noonan, 108 NY 179, 183), and that the work was intended to be permanent (see, 509 Sixth Ave. Corp. v New York City Tr. Auth., 15 NY2d 48, 52), there being issues of fact whether the work violated applicable regulations (see, Cranesville Block Co. v Niagara Mohawk Power Corp., 175 AD2d 444, 446), or was completed in a manner so negligent as to create a " 'substantial certainty’ ” of harm (Phillips v Sun Oil Co., 307 NY 328, 331). Defendant’s claim of a prescription easement is improperly raised for the first time on appeal (see, Recovery Consultants v Shih-Hsieh, 141 AD2d 272, 276), and in any event appears to be without merit in the absence of proof that defendant’s use of plaintiffs property was hostile (see, Boumis v Caetano, 140 AD2d 401, 402). Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

220 A.D.2d 278, 632 N.Y.S.2d 106, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10081, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fifty-five-corp-v-10-west-66th-street-corp-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack