You are here: / / PLAINTIFF ALLEGED CONSTRUCTION WORK ON DEFENDANT’S PROPERTY CAUSED...
, , ,

PLAINTIFF ALLEGED CONSTRUCTION WORK ON DEFENDANT’S PROPERTY CAUSED WATER TO ENCROACH ON PLAINTIFF’S PROPERTY; THE NEGLIGENCE ACTION WAS TIME-BARRED BECAUSE THE CONSTRUCTION WORK WAS DONE MORE THAN THREE YEARS BEFORE THE ACTION WAS FILED; THE RELATED NUISANCE AND TRESPASS ACTIONS WERE NOT TIME-BARRED BECAUSE THEY MAY CONSTITUTE “CONTINUING WRONGS” (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the negligence cause of action was time-barred but the related nuisance and trespass actions constituted “continuing wrongs” and therefore were not time-barred. Plaintiff alleged defendant did construction work on defendant’s property which caused water to encroach on plaintiff’s property. Because the construction work was done more than three years before the action was filed, the negligence action was not timely:

The defendant demonstrated, prima facie, that the negligence cause of action was barred under the applicable three-year statute of limitations (see CPLR 214[4]) by submitting evidence that the allegedly negligent construction work performed on its property occurred in or around June 2012, more than four years prior to the commencement of this action … .

… Here, the acts of continuous nuisance and trespass alleged in the amended complaint may give rise to successive causes of action pursuant to the continuous wrong doctrine … . Jefferson v New Life Tabernacle, Inc., 2024 NY Slip Op 01295, Second Dept 3-13-24

Practice Point: Here construction work on defendant’s land was alleged to have caused water to encroach on plaintiff’s property. The negligence action accrued when the construction work was done and was time-barred. But the related nuisance and trespass actions may constitute “continuing wrongs” which were not time-barred.

 

You might also like
DEFENDANT WHICH BUILT THE SWIMMING POOL, DEFENDANT WHICH INSTALLED THE POOL LINER, AND DEFENDANT OWNERS OF THE POOL, WERE NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SWIMMING POOL INJURY CASE, PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED WHEN HE DOVE IN AND STRUCK HIS CHIN IN A SHALLOW AREA (SECOND DEPT).
Motion for Discontinuance Without Prejudice Should Not Have Been Granted Because It Allowed Movant to Escape Potentially Adverse Determinations
THE PEOPLE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR INTIMIDATING WITNESSES SUCH THAT OUT-OF-COURT STATEMENTS BY THOSE WITNESSES WERE ADMISSIBLE; THE PEOPLE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO EXERCISE PEREMPTORY CHALLENGES TO JURORS ALREADY ACCEPTED BY THE DEFENSE (SECOND DEPT).
SUPREME COURT CORRECTLY DETERMINED THE HIGHEST AND BEST USE BASED ON THE ASSUMPTION THE PROPERTY WOULD HAVE BEEN REZONED, RAISING THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY.
THE TERMS OF THE LEASE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD DID NOT HAVE A DUTY TO MAKE NONSTRUCTURAL FLOOR REPAIRS; THE LANDLORD’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THE SEPARATION AGREEMENT PROVIDED THAT THE PARTIES “SHALL” CONSULT EACH OTHER ON HEALTH DECISIONS FOR THE CHILD BUT FATHER HAD THE CHILD INOCULATED WITHOUT CONSULTING MOTHER; BECAUSE THE PARTIES AGREED THE CHILD WOULD ATTEND PUBLIC SCHOOL, AND INOCULATION IS REQUIRED BY THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW, MOTHER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE SHE WAS PREJUDICED BY THE BREACH OF THE SEPARATION AGREEMENT; THEREFORE MOTHER’S MOTION TO HOLD HUSBAND IN CONTEMPT WAS PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).
Although It Was Proper to Consider the Motion to Dismiss Made After Issue Was Joined a Motion for Summary Judgment, Supreme Court Should Not Have Determined the Motion Without Giving Notice to the Parties So the Parties Could Lay Bare Their Proof
Court Should Have Taken Judicial Notice of Father’s False Allegations in Prior Proceedings in the Same Court/Court Should Not Have Drawn an Adverse Inference from Mother’s Failure to Call a Witness without Informing Mother of Its Intent to Do So

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

AFTER BEING TOLD THE PREMISES WAS NOT DEFENDANT’S RESIDENCE, THE PROCESS... NOT ALL REAR-END COLLISIONS ARE SOLELY THE FAULT OF THE REAR DRIVER; HERE PLAINTIFF,...