You are here: / / DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED WATER WAS NOT DIVERTED ONTO PLAINTIFF’S PROPERTY ...

DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED WATER WAS NOT DIVERTED ONTO PLAINTIFF’S PROPERTY IN BAD FAITH.

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant land-owner was entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint alleging the improper diversion of water onto plaintiff's property:

“Landowners making improvements to their land are not liable for damage caused by any resulting flow of surface water onto abutting property as long as the improvements are made in a good faith effort to enhance the usefulness of the property and no artificial means, such as pipes and drains, are used to divert the water thereon” … . “Thus, a plaintiff seeking to recover must establish that the improvements on the defendant's land caused the surface water to be diverted, that damages resulted and either that artificial means were used to effect the diversion or that the improvements were not made in a good faith effort to enhance the usefulness of the defendant's property”… .

Defendant averred that the complained-of work involved the removal of 17 to 25 cubic yards of soil around the entrance to the culvert and that it did not artificially channel water onto plaintiffs' property. He also stated that he performed the work in a good faith effort to create a detention area that would remediate drainage issues on his property in the event that the flow through the culvert was slow or blocked. Defendant further submitted the affidavit of a neighbor of the parties, a civil engineer with experience in stormwater management, who opined that the work did improve drainage and had no effect on the amount of water flowing onto plaintiffs' property. Defendant accordingly met his prima facie burden of demonstrating his entitlement to summary judgment, shifting the burden to plaintiffs to demonstrate that the changes were undertaken in bad faith or diverted additional water onto their property by artificial means… . Silverman v Doell, 2016 NY Slip Op 03054, 3rd Dept 4-21-16


You might also like
THE PLANNING BOARD TOOK THE REQUISITE HARD LOOK REQUIRED BY THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT (SEQRA) WHEN IT APPROVED THE DEVELOPMENT WHICH INCLUDED APARTMENTS AND A COSTCO RETAIL FACILITY; SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ANNULLED THE APPROVAL AS ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS (THIRD DEPT).
Hearsay Evidence of Another’s Admission to the Crime Warranted a Hearing Pursuant to Defendant’s Motion to Set Aside the Conviction
BECAUSE IT WAS POSSIBLE THE STATE WOULD REFUSE TO INDEMNIFY DEFENDANT DOCTORS IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION BROUGHT BY A STATE PRISON INMATE, THE SIMILAR ACTION IN SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, BUT RATHER THE SUPREME COURT ACTION SHOULD BE STAYED PENDING THE OUTCOME IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS (THIRD DEPT).
Principles of Ademption Applied to Property Transferred Out of the Estate
Defense Counsel’s Statement Defendant “Most Likely” Would Not Be Deported Based on a Guilty Plea Did Not Amount to Ineffective Assistance
COUNTY COURT DID NOT CORRECTLY APPLY THE CRITERIA OF THE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SURVIVORS JUSTICE ACT (DVSJA) WHEN CONSIDERING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR RESENTENCING; THE THIRD DEPARTMENT DETERMINED DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO A MORE LENIENT SENTENCE UNDER THE ACT AND RESENTENCED HER TO TIME SERVED (THIRD DEPT).
A JUDGE MAY NOT ORDER THAT ONLY THE ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD (AFC), AND NOT THE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, IS ALLOWED TO DISCUSS MATTERS OF SURRENDER OR ADOPTION WITH THE CHILD; SUCH AN ORDER INTERFERES WITH THE DEPARTMENT’S STATUTORY DUTIES (THIRD DEPT).
ALTHOUGH DEFENDANTS DID NOT SEE THE PLAINTIFF, THERE IS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER A PATIENT-PHYSICIAN RELATIONSHIP WAS CREATED BASED UPON ANOTHER DOCTOR’S ORDER THAT PLAINTIFF BE SEEN BY THOSE DEFENDANTS WITHIN ONE OR TWO DAYS (THIRD 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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

LADDER WAS NOT DEFECTIVE, FALL NOT COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240. PARALEGAL IN SMALL LAW OFFICE ENTITLED TO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS.