You are here: / / QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT HAD A GOOD FAITH BELIEF THAT HE OWNED...

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT HAD A GOOD FAITH BELIEF THAT HE OWNED THE LAND WHERE TREES WERE HARVESTED; THEREFORE THE ISSUE WHETHER THE TREBLE DAMAGES ASPECT OF RPAPL 861 APPLIES MUST BE DETERMINED AT TRIAL (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined there was a question of fact whether defendant had a good faith belief that the land on which trees were harvested was his own property. Therefore whether plaintiff was entitled to treble damages pursuant to Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL) 861 must be determined at trial:

“[T]he current version of RPAPL 861 was enacted . . . in an effort to deter the illegal taking of timber by increasing the potential damages for that activity” … . If a person violates RPAPL 861 by cutting another person’s trees without the other’s consent, or by causing such cutting to occur, “an action may be maintained against such person for treble the stumpage value of the tree or timber or [$250] per tree, or both and for any permanent and substantial damage caused to the land or the improvements thereon as a result of such violation” … . However, if a defendant in such an action “establishes[,] by clear and convincing evidence, that when the defendant committed the violation, he or she had cause to believe the land was his or her own, . . . then he or she shall be liable for the stumpage value or [$250] per tree, or both” … . Thus, “a trespasser’s good faith belief in a legal right to harvest timber does not insulate that person from the imposition of statutory damages, but merely saves him or her from having to pay the plaintiff treble damages” … . “Whether treble damages pursuant to RPAPL 861 are warranted is generally a factual determination” … . Although Gregory Miller testified that he intended to remove trees only from his own property, the record reflects that he did not have a survey of the property and relied on a determination of the boundary lines based on his own measurements. We conclude that a factual question exists, as Gregory Miller has failed at this stage of the proceedings to prove by clear and convincing evidence that he had a good faith belief that he owned the land at issue … . Holser v Geerholt, 2021 NY Slip Op 02578, Third Dept 4-29-21

 

You might also like
TOWN BOARD’S DENIAL OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT ALLOWING THE BLASTING AND REMOVAL OF ROCK WAS NOT ARBITRARY OR CAPRICIOUS DESPITE THE TOWN’S IMPROPER CONSIDERATION OF INFORMATION GATHERED OUTSIDE THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT PROCESS, THE TOWN’S RULING WAS SUPPORTED BY THE LOCAL LAW CRITERIA FOR ISSUANCE OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT (THIRD DEPT).
THE PEOPLE’S FAILURE TO TURN OVER TO THE DEFENSE A VIDEO CONTAINING IMPEACHMENT MATERIAL PRIOR TO FILING A CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE RENDERED THE CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE AND THE STATEMENT OF READINESS ILLUSORY; INDICTMENT DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT).
COVID STIMULUS PAYMENTS WERE ADVANCE TAX REFUNDS MEASURED BY THE NUMBER OF CHILDREN, NOT PAYMENTS FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE CHILDREN; THEREFORE THE PAYMENTS WERE SUBJECT TO EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION IN THIS DIVORCE PROCEEDING AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AWARDED TO MOTHER AS CHILD SUPPORT (THIRD DEPT).
LAW OFFICE FAILURE WARRANTED VACATING THE DISMISSAL OF THE FORECLOSURE ACTION STEMMING FROM PLAINTIFF BANK’S FAILURE TO APPEAR AT A SCHEDULED CONFERENCE (THIRD DEPT).
Absence of Privity Precluded Application of Collateral Estoppel Doctrine 
IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY DID NOT FILE AN AFFIRMATION AS REQUIRED BY AN ADMINSTRATIVE ORDER; THE MAJORITY DID NOT ADDRESS THE ISSUE BECAUSE IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN RAISED IN A PRIOR APPEAL WHICH DEFENDANT DID NOT PERFECT; THE DISSENT ARGUED THE ISSUE COULD AND SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ON THIS APPEAL (THIRD DEPT).
ALTHOUGH CLAIMANT WAS REHIRED AFTER THE STRIKE, THE EMPLOYER HAD NOT ASSURED CLAIMANT OF THE RIGHT TO RETURN TO WORK DURING THE STRIKE, THEREFORE THE EMPLOYER WAS NOT ENTITLED TO THE SEVEN-WEEK SUSPENSION OF UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS DURING A STRIKE PERMITTED BY LABOR LAW 592 (THIRD DEPT).
The Absence of Proof Defendants Disclosed Slanderous Statements Included in Letters to Plaintiff Precluded a “Name-Clearing” Hearing/The Jury Should Not Have Been Allowed to Consider “Ostracism and Rejection” Damages Absent Proof Defendants Were Responsible for Republication of the Slanderous Remarks by Third Persons

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

THE MILD PENALTY IMPOSED BY THE ARBITRATOR ON AN EMPLOYEE WHO SEXUALLY HARASSED... THE PROCESS SERVER DID NOT TIMELY FILE PROOF OF SERVICE; THEREFORE SERVICE ON...