You are here: / Real Property Law
, , , ,

“Extreme and Outrageous Conduct” Is Not an Element of “Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress”—Elements of Private Nuisance, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, and Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress Explained in Some Depth—Complaint Should Have Been Dismissed for Failure to State a Cause of Action

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Miller, reversed Supreme Court and dismissed the complaint for failure to state a cause of action.  The opinion is important because it clarified “negligent infliction of emotional distress,” explaining that “extreme and outrageous conduct” is not one of the elements. Although the court held that the complaint did not state causes of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, or private nuisance, the nature of those causes of action was explained in some depth. The defendants owned property next door to the plaintiffs’ home.  The defendants rented to tenants, who were not parties to the lawsuit.  The tenants apparently held loud parties at which drugs were used and sold. The plaintiffs at one point called the police to complain about the tenants’ behavior. Subsequently two masked men entered plaintiffs’ home to intimidate them. Plaintiff-husband ultimately shot the two intruders and in the process accidently shot his dog. The men were arrested by the police. The opinion is too detailed to properly summarize here, but the essence of the court’s ruling is that the tenants’ behavior was not sufficiently linked to any acts or omissions by the defendants. The court wrote:

The elements of a private nuisance cause of action are: “(1) an interference substantial in nature, (2) intentional in origin, (3) unreasonable in character, (4) with a person’s property right to use and enjoy land, (5) caused by another’s conduct in acting or failure to act” … . * * *  … [T]he duty to abate a private nuisance existing on real property arises from the power to possess the property and control the activities that occur on it. Accordingly, a landowner who has relinquished possession of his or her property will not be liable for a private nuisance that arises on the property if the landowner neither created the nuisance nor had notice of it at the time that possession of the property was transferred … . In the absence of any such knowledge or consent to the objectionable activity which may be attributable to the landowner at the time the lease is executed, the common-law duty to abate a nuisance that exists during the course of a tenancy lies with the tenant, in his or her capacity as the one in possession of the property … .

… [U]nder New York law, a cause of action alleging intentional infliction of emotion distress “has four elements: (i) extreme and outrageous conduct; (ii) intent to cause, or disregard of a substantial probability of causing, severe emotional distress; (iii) a causal connection between the conduct and injury; and (iv) severe emotional distress” … . * * * ” Liability has been found only where the conduct has been so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community'” … . * * * Although the individuals who broke into the plaintiffs’ home may have engaged in extreme and outrageous conduct, the complaint alleges no basis upon which the intruders’ conduct may be imputed to the defendants. The defendants’ intentional conduct, as alleged in the complaint, amounts to nothing more than a failure to ensure that their tenants and their friends refrained from committing the acts described in the complaint. * * *

[Re: negligent infliction of emotional distress] …. [T]o the extent that certain of this Court’s past decisions have indicated that extreme and outrageous conduct is an element of negligent infliction of emotional distress … , those cases should no longer be followed. … [A] breach of a duty of care “resulting directly in emotional harm is compensable even though no physical injury occurred” … . However, the mental injury must be “a direct, rather than a consequential, result of the breach” … , and the claim must possess “some guarantee of genuineness” … . … Applying the correct standard to the complaint in this case, we conclude that the plaintiffs’ failure to adequately allege extreme and outrageous conduct is not fatal to their cause of action alleging negligent infliction of emotional distress … . Nevertheless, we conclude that the complaint is deficient in another respect, as it failed to adequately allege facts that would establish that the mental injury was “a direct, rather than a consequential, result of the breach” … . Taggart v Costabile, 2015 NY Slip Op 05464, 2nd Dept 6-24-15

 

, ,

Contract Merged with the Deed and Any Rights Afforded Purchaser by the Uniform Vendor and Purchaser Risk Act Were Extinguished Upon Transfer of Title

After transfer of title, the purchaser alleged that the property had been damaged between the execution of the purchase contract and the transfer of title. The Third Department determined summary judgment was properly awarded the seller. The property was sold “as is” and the contract did not survive the transfer of title.  Any rights granted purchaser under the Uniform Vendor and Purchaser Risk Act (UVPRA), which allows for rescission in some cases, were extinguished upon the transfer of title:

Unless a land sale contract expressly provides otherwise, a vendor bears the risk of loss until legal title or possession has been transferred to the purchaser … . However, a contract for the sale of real property merges with the deed and, as a result, the terms of the contract do not survive transfer of title unless the parties clearly specify otherwise … . Here, the terms and conditions of the auction provided that the sale would be governed by the Uniform Vendor and Purchaser Risk Act (hereinafter UVPRA), which provides a purchaser with the right to rescind the sale contract or recover money paid toward the purchase price under certain circumstances (see General Obligations Law § 5-1311 [1] [a]). However, there was no indication that plaintiff’s rights under the UVPRA would survive transfer of title. In fact, the terms and conditions provided that the property would be sold “as is” and that a purchaser would not have recourse against defendant for any defects stemming from the sale. Therefore, any rights that plaintiff may have asserted under the UVPRA were extinguished when title was transferred to plaintiff. Burkins & Foley Trucking & Stor., Inc. v County of Albany, 2015 NY Slip Op 05252, 3rd Dept 6-18-15

 

,

Demolition of Building Without Notice or Opportunity to Be Heard Was a Proper Exercise of City’s Police Powers

The Second Department determined summary judgment dismissing the complaint against the city, based upon the city’s demolishing a building without notice or the opportunity to be heard, was properly granted:

“In the exercise of its police powers [a] municipality may demolish a building without providing notice and an opportunity to be heard if there are exigent circumstances which require immediate demolition of the building to protect the public from imminent danger” … . “[W]here there is competent evidence allowing the official to reasonably believe that an emergency does in fact exist, or that affording pre-deprivation process would be otherwise impractical, the discretionary invocation of an emergency procedure results in a constitutional violation only where such invocation is arbitrary or amounts to an abuse of discretion” … . Here, the defendant City of New York made a prima facie showing that its decision to cause the demolition of the subject building was not arbitrary or an abuse of discretion … . In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Iavarone v City of New York, 2015 NY Slip Op 04811, 2nd Dept 6-10-15

 

Good, Fact-Based Analysis of the Requirements for Adverse Possession

Reversing Supreme Court’s grant of summary judgment to the plaintiffs on their adverse-possession claim, the Third Department determined a question of fact had been raised about whether plaintiffs’ use of the disputed land was with the defendants’ permission, which would defeat the “hostility” element of adverse possession.  The Third Department offered a detailed fact-based analysis which provides an excellent lesson on the law of adverse possession. The court noted, on the issue of exclusivity, the claim that defendants occasionally maintained the disputed property during the plaintiffs’ absence was not enough to raise a question of fact about the plaintiffs’ exclusive use of the property:

To establish their claim for adverse possession, plaintiffs are required to prove by clear and convincing evidence that their possession of the disputed property “[was] hostile and under a claim of right, actual, open and notorious, exclusive and continuous for the statutory period of 10 years” … . Additionally, where, as here, the adverse possession claim is not based upon a written instrument, the party asserting the claim “must establish that the land was ‘usually cultivated or improved’ or ‘protected by a substantial inclosure'” … .

As for [defendant’s] alleged maintenance of the disputed property during plaintiffs’ absences, “exclusivity is not defeated even if the true owner makes occasional forays onto the property . . .. [A]ll that is required is possession consistent with the nature of the property so as to indicate exclusive ownership” (1-5 Warren’s Weed, New York Real Property § 5.33 [2015]). In our view, plaintiffs’ exclusive, regular use and maintenance of the disputed property during their periods of occupation were consistent with the seasonal nature of their property. The occasional maintenance that defendants allegedly performed or directed during plaintiffs’ absences — which was performed without plaintiffs’ knowledge and did not interfere in any way with plaintiffs’ possession or use of the disputed property — was insufficient to meet defendants’ prima facie burden to establish that plaintiffs’ use of the property was not exclusive … . Bergmann v Spallane, 2015 NY Slip Op 04713, 3rd Dept 6-4-15

 

Restrictive Covenant Was Part of a Common Development Scheme and Was Enforceable by All Property Owners In the Subdivision

The Second Department determined a restrictive covenant requiring that one parcel in a subdivision remain undeveloped was enforceable by property owners in the subdivision. The covenant was part of a common development scheme created for the benefit of all property owners. The covenant stated that the parcel “shall be maintained . . . in perpetuity as open space preserving same in its present natural condition and not permitting or causing thereon any construction, improvements or alterations of the existing natural state of the premises. This restriction shall run with the land in perpetuity.”  Defendants were seeking to build an access road across the parcel.  The Second Department explained: . “The law has long favored free and unencumbered use of real property, and covenants restricting use are strictly construed against those seeking to enforce them … . Courts will enforce such restraints only where the party seeking enforcement establishes their application by clear and convincing evidence … . However, where proved by clear and convincing evidence, they are to be enforced pursuant to their clear meaning…”. [internal quotations omitted] Fader v Taconic Tract Dev., LLC, 2015 NY Slip Op 04272, 2nd Dept 5-20-15

 

Alterations to Easement Okay—They Did Not Interfere With the Easement-Holder’s Right of Passage

The Third Department determined the alterations made to an ingress and egress easement along a private road, including the installation of a gate, were not actionable because they did not interfere with the easement holder’s right of passage:

It is well settled that “[t]he extent and nature of an easement must be determined by the language contained in the grant, aided where necessary by any circumstances tending to manifest the intent of the parties” … . Here, the easement specifically granted plaintiff and defendants the right of “ingress and egress and for electric, gas, water, sewer and similar services over, under and along [the] farm road” on the McLean property. Importantly then, “[a] right of way along a private road belonging to another person does not give the [easement holder] a right that the road shall be in no respect altered or the width decreased, for his [or her] right . . . is merely a right to pass with the convenience to which he [or she] has been accustomed” … . In the absence of a demonstrated intent to provide otherwise, an easement of ingress and egress may be narrowed, covered, gated or fenced off, “‘so long as the easement holder’s right of passage is not impaired'”… . Boice v Hirschbihl, 2015 NY Slip Op 04191, 3rd Dept 5-14-15

 

,

Questions of Fact Re: Whether a Deed Was Forged and Whether a Will Was Duly Executed

The Second Department determined there existed questions of fact whether a deed was a forgery and whether a will was duly executed.  In the course of the decision, the court explained: (1) there can be no bona fide purchasers or encumbrancers of real property based on a forged deed; (2) the transfer of title of real property devised under a will title vests on death not probate; (3) forged deeds are null and void ab initio; and (4) there was insufficient proof due execution of the will—no proof an attorney drafted the will or supervised its execution–no proof decedent possessed testamentary capacity:

Pursuant to Real Property Law § 266, a bona fide purchaser or encumbrancer for value is protected in his or her title unless he or she had previous notice of the alleged prior fraud by the seller … . However, a person cannot be a bona fide purchaser or encumbrancer for value through a forged deed, as it is void and conveys no title … . …

Generally, “title to real property devised under the will of a decedent vests in the beneficiary at the moment of the testator’s death and not at the time of probate” … . Here, however, since the validity of the will is being challenged by the petitioner, it was incumbent upon the respondents, as the proponents of the will, to prove due execution of the will and testamentary capacity … . …

… [T]he … evidence was insufficient to establish that the will was executed in accordance with the formalities required by law (see EPTL 3-2.1), and that the decedent was of sound mind and memory when he executed the will and understood the nature and consequences of executing the will … . While there is a presumption of regularity where the drafting attorney supervised the will’s execution …, here, there was no evidentiary support for the respondents’ conclusory contention that the will was drafted by [the attorney] or that he supervised the execution ceremony. Moreover, the respondents failed to adduce any evidence demonstrating that the decedent possessed testamentary capacity when he signed the will. Matter of Raccioppi, 2015 NY Slip Op 04135, 2nd Dept 5-13-15

 

, , ,

Mortgagee in Possession Has a Duty to Care for the Property/Criteria for Determining a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Cause of Action, Where Documentary Evidence Is Submitted, Explained

In the context of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action (where documentary evidence was submitted), the Second Department determined a mortgagee in possession of property (here because the property owner went bankrupt) has a duty to care for the property which is identical a property owner’s duty.  Here plaintiffs alleged the property, which had been damaged by fire, was allowed to deteriorate to the extent that plaintiffs’ neighboring property was damaged. The causes of action for nuisance, negligence and trespass survived the motion to dismiss.  The court noted its role when documentary evidence is submitted in support of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action:

A motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) may be appropriately granted “only where the documentary evidence utterly refutes plaintiff’s factual allegations, conclusively establishing a defense as a matter of law” … . While the documentary evidence submitted by One West established that it did not own the defendants’ property at any relevant time … , that evidence did not “utterly refute” the plaintiffs’ contention that One West had a duty based on its status as a mortgagee in possession. In fact, the documents, which establish ownership, did not address the plaintiffs’ contention regarding One West’s alleged status as a mortgagee in possession … . Accordingly the Supreme Court erred in granting the motion insofar as it sought dismissal of the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1).

In considering a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), the court should accept the facts as alleged in the complaint as true, accord plaintiffs the benefit of every possible favorable inference, and determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory” … . “Where, as here, evidentiary material is submitted and considered on a motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), and the motion is not converted into one for summary judgment, the question becomes whether the plaintiff has a cause of action, not whether the plaintiff has stated one, and unless it has been shown that a material fact claimed by the plaintiff to be one is not a fact at all, and unless it can be said that no significant dispute exists regarding it, dismissal should not eventuate” … .

The plaintiffs’ contention that [defendant] was a mortgagee in possession has not been shown to be “not a fact at all” … . If [defendant] were, in fact, a mortgagee in possession, it was “bound to employ the same care and supervision over the mortgaged premises that a reasonably prudent owner would exercise in relation to his [or her] own property; he [or she] is bound to make reasonable and needed repairs, and is responsible for any loss or damage occasioned by his willful default or gross neglect in this regard” … . Thus, the complaint, as augmented by the affidavit of the plaintiff Emeta Allen, which was submitted in opposition to the motion to dismiss …, properly set forth causes of action alleging nuisance, negligence, and trespass, and the plaintiffs have causes of action sounding in nuisance, negligence, and trespass. Allen v Echeverria, 2015 NY Slip Op 04075, 2nd Dept 5-13-15

 

, ,

A Forged Deed Is Void Ab Initio and Any Encumbrance on Real Property Based Upon a Forged Deed Is Null and Void—Action Based Upon a Forged Deed Is Not Therefore Subject to the Six-Year Statute of Limitations for Fraud

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, over a three-judge dissent, determined that a forged deed is void ab initio and neither a forged deed nor a mortgage interest based upon a forged deed is valid at any time.  Therefore, the six-year statute of limitations for fraud does not apply and the action was not time-barred: “The legal question raised in this appeal is whether plaintiff … is time-barred under CPLR 213 (8) from seeking to set aside and cancel, as null and void, defendant Bank of America's mortgage interest in real property conveyed on the authority of a forged deed. Under our prior case law it is well-settled that a forged deed is void ab initio, meaning a legal nullity at its inception. As such, any encumbrance upon real property based on a forged deed is null and void. Therefore, the statute of limitations set forth in CPLR 213 (8) does not foreclose plaintiff's claim against defendant. ” Faison v Lewis. 2015 NY Slip Op 04026, CtApp 5-12-15

 

,

City’s Annexation of Town Land Was in the Overall Public Interest

The Fourth Department determined the annexation of vacant town land by the city was demonstrated to be in the overall public interest, despite the loss of tax revenue to the town:

The municipality seeking an article 17 annexation has the burden of proving that the annexation is in the overall public interest” (…see General Municipal Law § 712…). “A reviewing court must weigh[ ] the benefit or detriment to the annexing municipality, the territory proposed to be annexed, and the remaining governmental unit from which the territory would be taken” … . “Benefit and detriment are customarily defined in terms of municipal services such as police and fire protection, health regulations, sewer and water service, public utilities and public education” … . “Another factor to consider is whether the municipality seeking the annexation and the territory proposed to be annexed have the requisite unity of purpose and facilities to constitute a community’ ” … .  Matter of City of Fulton v Town of Grandby, 2014 NY Slip Op 03371, 4th Dept 5-9-14

 

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