From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Storch v. Town of Cornwall

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 13, 2002
294 A.D.2d 426 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)

Opinion

2001-05462

Argued April 12, 2002.

May 13, 2002.

In an action, inter alia, to recover for property damage, the defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (McGuirk, J.), dated May 8, 2001, as denied that branch of its motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) and (7) which was to dismiss the first and second causes of action asserted in the complaint, among other things, for failure to state a cause of action.

Rice Amon, Suffern, N.Y. (Terry Rice of counsel), for appellant.

David A. Brodsky, Chester, N.Y., for respondent.

Before: CORNELIUS J. O'BRIEN, J.P., WILLIAM D. FRIEDMANN, HOWARD MILLER, STEPHEN G. CRANE, JJ.


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

The Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the defendant's motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) and (7) to dismiss the plaintiff's first and second causes of action, inter alia, for failure to state a cause of action (see CPLR 3211[a][7]). Accepting the facts as alleged in the complaint as true and affording the plaintiff the benefit of every favorable inference (see Leon v. Martinez, 84 N.Y.2d 83, 87; Farmer v. Green Bus Lines, 254 A.D.2d 389, 390), the first cause of action, which seeks to recover for property damage the plaintiff allegedly suffered when certain real property owned by him was flooded, sufficiently alleges that the Town was negligent in failing to properly maintain and repair a certain drainage system near the property (see, Colgan v. Town of Hillsdale, 68 N.Y.2d 788, 789; Pet Products v. City of Yonkers, 290 A.D.2d 546; Zeltmann v. Town of Islip, 265 A.D.2d 407, 408; cf. Biernacki v. Village of Ravena, 245 A.D.2d 656, 657).

The second cause of action, which seeks a permanent injunction, sufficiently alleges a cause of action based on nuisance and trespass premised on the plaintiff's claims that the Town diverted storm and surface water onto his property, causing flooding (see Zimmerman v. Carnack, 292 A.D.2d 601).

The Town's remaining contentions are without merit.

O'BRIEN, J.P., FRIEDMANN, H. MILLER and CRANE, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Storch v. Town of Cornwall

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 13, 2002
294 A.D.2d 426 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
Case details for

Storch v. Town of Cornwall

Case Details

Full title:DAVID ALLAN STORCH, respondent, v. TOWN OF CORNWALL, appellant

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

Date published: May 13, 2002

Citations

294 A.D.2d 426 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
741 N.Y.S.2d 917

Citing Cases

ZUTT v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK

In any event, the collection of storm water by a series of pipes and catch basins, and the discharge of storm…

Johnston v. Town of Jerusalem

The complaint alleges that, in the course of repairing the curb box for plaintiff's home, employees of the…