Macris v. Matta

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Macris v. Matta

101 A.D.3d 957, 956 N.Y.2d 173

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

DecidedDecember 19, 2012

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 101 A.D.3d 957 (Macris v. Matta) 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

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

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

101 A.D.3d 957, 956 N.Y.2d 173, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/macris-v-matta-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack