Irving Land Corp. v. A. J. Richard & Sons, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Irving Land Corp. v. A. J. Richard & Sons, Inc.

262 A.D.2d 286, 689 N.Y.S.2d 651, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5911

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

DecidedJune 1, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 262 A.D.2d 286 (Irving Land Corp. v. A. J. Richard & Sons, Inc.) 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

Irving Land Corp. v. A. J. Richard & Sons, Inc., 262 A.D.2d 286, 689 N.Y.S.2d 651, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5911 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for trespass, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Winick, J.), dated June 4, 1998, as granted that branch of the cross motion of the defendant L.A. Sesto Construction Corp. which was for partial summary judgment dismissing the fourth and sixth causes of action asserted in the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs payable to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

The Supreme Court properly dismissed the fourth and sixth causes of action to recover punitive damages for conversion and trespass, respectively, as there is no evidence that the defendants “acted with actual malice involving intentional wrongdoing, or that [their] conduct amounted to a wanton, willful, or reckless disregard of right of possession” (see, Ligo v Gerould, 244 AD2d 852; UA-Columbia Cablevision v Fraken Bldrs., 114 AD2d 448; MacKennan v Bern Realty Co., 30 AD2d 679; Litwin v Town of Huntington, 248 AD2d 361, 362). Bracken, J. P., Thompson, Goldstein, McGinity and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for trespass, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Winick, J.), dated June 4, 1998, as granted that branch of the cross motion of the defendant L.A. Sesto Construction Corp. which was for partial summary judgment dismissing the fourth and sixth causes of action asserted in the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs payable to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

The Supreme Court properly dismissed the fourth and sixth causes of action to recover punitive damages for conversion and trespass, respectively, as there is no evidence that the defendants “acted with actual malice involving intentional wrongdoing, or that [their] conduct amounted to a wanton, willful, or reckless disregard of right of possession” (see, Ligo v Gerould, 244 AD2d 852; UA-Columbia Cablevision v Fraken Bldrs., 114 AD2d 448; MacKennan v Bern Realty Co., 30 AD2d 679; Litwin v Town of Huntington, 248 AD2d 361, 362). Bracken, J. P., Thompson, Goldstein, McGinity and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

262 A.D.2d 286, 689 N.Y.S.2d 651, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5911, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/irving-land-corp-v-a-j-richard-sons-inc-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack