From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

City N.Y. v. Paerdegat Boat, Racquet Club

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 19, 2001
281 A.D.2d 506 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)

Opinion

Argued February 16, 2001.

March 19, 2001.

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for trespass to real property, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Garry, J.), dated January 10, 2000, as, upon the granting of the respondents' motion pursuant to CPLR 4401 made at the close of the plaintiff's case to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them, dismissed three of the causes of action asserted in the complaint.

Michael D. Hess, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Edward F. X. Hart and Jane L. Gordon of counsel), for appellant.

Thurm Heller, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Stuart Diamond of counsel), for respondents.

Before: CORNELIUS J. O'BRIEN, J.P., WILLIAM D. FRIEDMANN, HOWARD MILLER, ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

A defendant's motion for judgment on the ground that the plaintiff failed to make out a prima facie case may be granted "only if there is no rational process by which the jury could find for the plaintiff as against the moving defendant" (Hylick v. Halweil, 112 A.D.2d 400). Further, "the plaintiff's evidence must be accepted as true, and [the] plaintiff must be given the benefit of every favorable inference which can reasonably be drawn from that evidence" (Hylick v. Halweil, supra). The plaintiff (hereinafter the City), failed to meet its prima facie burden of proving that it owned the property in question, an essential element of both common-law trespass and violation of RPAPL 861, two of its three causes of action at issue on the appeal. The City similarly failed to meet its prima facie burden with respect to the third cause of action to recover damages for common-law public nuisance. Accordingly, the trial court properly dismissed the three causes of action.

The City does not challenge the dismissal of the remaining four causes of action (see, Ciesinski v. Town of Aurora, 202 A.D.2d 984).

In view of the foregoing, we need not reach the City's remaining contentions.


Summaries of

City N.Y. v. Paerdegat Boat, Racquet Club

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 19, 2001
281 A.D.2d 506 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
Case details for

City N.Y. v. Paerdegat Boat, Racquet Club

Case Details

Full title:CITY OF NEW YORK, APPELLANT, v. PAERDEGAT BOAT RACQUET CLUB, INC., ET AL.…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Mar 19, 2001

Citations

281 A.D.2d 506 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
721 N.Y.S.2d 800

Citing Cases

City of N.Y. v. Paerdegat Boat Racquet Club

Decided October 23, 2001. Appeal from the App. Div., 2nd Dept: 281 A.D.2d 506. Motion for leave to appeal…

Bernardi v. Spyratos

However, the plaintiffs' proposed allegation against the Wilcox defendants in paragraph 106 of the proposed…