Macris v. Matta

101 A.D.3d 957, 956 N.Y.2d 173
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 19, 2012·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

The Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, as they have no affirmative duty to remedy a natural condition on their property such as the beaver dam at issue here (see Vanderwiele v Taylor, 65 NY 341 [1875]; Frank v Garrison, 184 AD2d 852 [1992]; Lichtman v Nadler, 74 AD2d 66 [1980]). In response to this showing, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Hilltop Nyack Corp. v TRMI Holdings, 272 AD2d 521 [2000]; cf. Higgins v Village of Orchard Park, 277 AD2d 989 [2000]).

The parties’ remaining contentions are without merit. Mastro, J.P., Rivera, Chambers and Lott, JJ., concur.

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

Macris v. Matta, 101 A.D.3d 957, 956 N.Y.2d 173 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

101 A.D.3d 957 (Macris v. Matta) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Sunlight Clinton Realty, LLC v. Gowanus Indus. Park, Inc.
2018 NY Slip Op 6783 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)