You are here: / / Encroaching Structure Built to Prevent Excavation-Related Damage to Adjoining...
,

Encroaching Structure Built to Prevent Excavation-Related Damage to Adjoining Property Is a Trespass

The First Department determined the fact that a property owner [Madison] is strictly liable for damage to an adjoining property [17 East] caused by excavation did not allow the construction of encroaching structures to prevent excavation-related damage to the adjoining property:

The imposition of absolute liability on parties whose excavation work damages an adjoining property places the burden of protecting adjoining property onto those undertaking the excavation work, and the risks thereof, rather than those whose interest in adjoining property is harmed by the work … . It should not be inferred, however, that the transfer of risk to the owner/excavator carries with it a corresponding unfettered right to excavate more than 10 feet below curb level, or that the adjoining property owner must allow underpinning of its property simply because the neighboring property owner undertaking such excavation bears absolute liability for any damage it may cause to the adjoining property … . * * *

Madison did not have the right, in the absence of an agreement with 17 East Owners, to erect permanent structures extending beyond the property line, either above or below the surface, and thus encroaching on 17 East Owners’ property.  Madison 96th Assoc LLC v 17 E 96th Owners Corp, 2014 NY Slip Op 07422, 1st Dept 10-30-14

 

You might also like
BUYER WAS ENTITLED TO SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF A CONTRACT FOR THE SALE OF “INCLUSIONARY AIR RIGHTS” (IAR’S); IAR’S DICTATE THE ALLOWED SQUARE FOOTAGE OF BUILDINGS ON A PARCEL OF LAND (THE ALLOWED NUMBER OF FLOORS FOR EXAMPLE) (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL CARRYING A TANK WHILE WALKING ON THE MUDDY BOTTOM OF AN EXCAVATED HOLE; THE BOTTOM OF THE HOLE WAS NOT A PASSAGEWAY (LABOR LAW 241(6)) AND THERE WAS NO ELEVATION-RELATED RISK (LABOR LAW 240(1); THOSE TWO CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).
FIVE HOUR BREAK SUFFICIENT TO DISSIPATE EFFECT OF THE MIRANDA VIOLATION.
DEFENDANT DID NOT PRESENT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO WARRANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS DRAM SHOP ACT CASE; POINTING TO GAPS IN PLAINTIFF’S PROOF WILL NOT MEET THE BURDEN OF PROOF AT THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT STAGE (FIRST DEPT). ​
RESPONDENT, THE PREVAILING PARTY IN AN ARBITRATION, WAS ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY’S FEES FOR THE SUBSEQUENT ARTICLE 75 PROCEEDING TO VACATE THE AWARD AND FOR THE APPEAL TO THE APPELLATE DIVISION (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT WAS TOLD HE COULD APPEAL THE DENIAL OF HIS SPEEDY TRIAL MOTION AFTER ENTERING A GUILTY PLEA, WRONG ADVICE WARRANTED VACATING THE PLEA DESPITE FAILURE TO PRESERVE THE ARGUMENT (FIRST DEPT).
ISSUE OF FACT ABOUT MEANING OF AN EXCLUSION IN A FLOOD INSURANCE POLICY.
FAMILY COURT DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION TO MODIFY A SEPARATION AGREEMENT WHICH WAS INCORPORATED BUT NOT MERGED INTO THE JUDGMENT OF DIVORCE; A PLENARY ACTION IS REQUIRED (FIRST DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Summary Judgment Admitting Will to Probate Appropriate Where Objections to the... Jury Instruction Re: Presumption Will Was Duly Executed Proper Even In Absence...