You are here: / / CLAIM FOR A DE FACTO TAKING ACCRUES WHEN THE TAKING IS FIRST APPARENT,...
,

CLAIM FOR A DE FACTO TAKING ACCRUES WHEN THE TAKING IS FIRST APPARENT, NOT WHEN IT IS FIRST DISCOVERED BY THE CLAIMANT.

The Second Department determined the structures built by the city, which caused water to accumulate on claimant’s land, were apparent when constructed in 2005. The fact that the structures were not discovered by the claimant until 2011 was not relevant. Therefore the claim for a de facto taking expired in 2008 and was time-barred:

A de facto taking claim is governed by the three-year statute of limitations applicable to claims to recover damages for injury to property set forth in CPLR 214(4) … . Such a claim accrues at the time of the taking or, at the latest, when the taking becomes apparent, regardless of the time of discovery … .

Here, the record established that the headwall and overflow outlet were readily visible when the alleged taking occurred in September 2005. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly determined that the claimant’s time to bring any claim for damages for the alleged de facto taking expired in September 2008… . Matter of South Richmond Bluebelt, Phase 3. 594 Assoc., Inc. (City of New York), 2016 NY Slip Op 05577, 2nd Dept 9-20-26

 

EMINENT DOMAIN (CLAIM FOR A DE FACTO TAKING ACCRUES WHEN THE TAKING IS FIRST APPARENT, NOT WHEN IT IS FIRST DISCOVERED BY THE CLAIMANT)/MUNICIPAL LAW (EMINENT DOMAIN, CLAIM FOR A DE FACTO TAKING ACCRUES WHEN THE TAKING IS FIRST APPARENT, NOT WHEN IT IS FIRST DISCOVERED BY THE CLAIMANT)/DE FACTO TAKING (EMINENT DOMAIN, CLAIM FOR A DE FACTO TAKING ACCRUES WHEN THE TAKING IS FIRST APPARENT, NOT WHEN IT IS FIRST DISCOVERED BY THE CLAIMANT)

You might also like
SCHOOL NOT LIABLE FOR OFF PREMISES ASSAULT.
RESTRAINING A PERSON FOR A FEW SECONDS WHILE ATTEMPTING TO PULL THAT PERSON INTO A VEHICLE DOES NOT SATISFY THE CRITERIA FOR KIDNAPPING (SECOND DEPT).
ARBITRATOR’S RULING WAS IRRATIONAL AND VIOLATED CPLR 1209 IN THIS NO-FAULT INSURANCE ACTION, HEALTH CARE PROVIDER, AS AN ASSIGNEE, WAS ENTITLED TO ARBITRATE ITS CLAIM FOR CARE PROVIDED TO THE INJURED INFANT (SECOND DEPT).
THE HEARSAY EXCEPTION IN ARTICLE 10 OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT DOES NOT APPLY IN ARTICLE 8 FAMILY OFFENSE PROCEEDINGS; ORDER OF PROTECTION REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).
Question of Fact Whether Movie Theater Breached Its Duty to Protect Patrons from Assault
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION GRANTED IN THE INTERESTS OF SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE; THE EVIDENCE SUGGESTED DEFENDANT WAS THE VICTIM OF A SCHEME TO DEFRAUD; SUPREME COURT, HOWEVER, SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT DRIVER ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT UNDER THE EMERGENCY DOCTRINE.
PLAINTIFF BANK NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT BECAUSE IT FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH RPAPL 1304, A CONDITION PRECEDENT; DEFENDANT NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT BECAUSE HE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE BANK FAILED TO COMPLY WITH RPAPL 1304 (SECOND 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

STATUTE ALLOWING PROPERTY OWNERS TO CHOOSE SCHOOL DISTRICTS DOES NOT APPLY TO... FAMILY COURT DID NOT HAVE THE POWER TO ORDER THE FINGERPRINTING OF PETITIONER...