Curwin v. Verizon Communications (Lec), 2005-08409.

CourtNew York Supreme Court Appellate Division
Citation2006 NY Slip Op 09543,827 N.Y.S.2d 256,35 A.D.3d 645
Docket Number2005-08409.
PartiesDAVID CURWIN et al., Appellants, v. VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS (LEC), Respondent.
Decision Date19 December 2006
35 A.D.3d 645
827 N.Y.S.2d 256
2006 NY Slip Op 09543
DAVID CURWIN et al., Appellants,
v.
VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS (LEC), Respondent.
2005-08409.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Second Department.
Decided December 19, 2006.

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for trespass, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Dabiri, J.), dated July 18, 2005, which denied their motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability and granted the defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.


Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof granting the cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and substituting therefor a provision denying the cross motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Entering upon the land of another without permission, even if innocently or by mistake, constitutes trespass (see Burger v Singh, 28 AD3d 695, 698 [2006]; Kaplan v Incorporated Vil. of Lynbrook, 12 AD3d 410, 412 [2004]). "The essence of trespass is the invasion of a person's interest in the exclusive possession of land" (id. [internal quotation marks omitted]). However, an action alleging trespass may not be maintained where the alleged trespasser has an easement over the land in question (see Mangusi v Town of Mount Pleasant, 19 AD3d 656, 657 [2005]; Kaplan v Incorporated Vil. of Lynbrook, supra).

Here, the defendant failed to establish, prima facie, that it was entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557 [1980]). The evidence proffered by the defendant in support of its cross motion did not establish that the plaintiffs or their authorized

agent granted an easement or license to the defendant permitting it to install and maintain certain cables, wires, terminal boxes, and fixtures (hereinafter the equipment) under the sidewalk through the basement and through to the outside rear wall of the plaintiffs' property.

The plaintiffs made a prima facie showing of their entitlement to summary judgment establishing that the defendant trespassed on their property by refusing to remove the equipment after the conveyance of the property to them (see Cassata v New York New England Exch., 250 AD2d 491 [1998]; Bunke v New York Tel. Co., 110 App Div 241 [1905], affd 188 NY 600 [1907]). In opposition, however, the defendant...

To continue reading

Request your trial
16 practice notes
  • Am. Infertility of N.Y., P.C. v. Verizon N.Y. Inc., 159892/2015
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New York)
    • December 10, 2020
    ...v. Verizon NY Inc. , 18 N.Y.3d 777, 791-92, 944 N.Y.S.2d 732, 967 N.E.2d 1177 (2012). See Curwin v. Verizon Communications (LEC) , 35 A.D.3d 645, 646, 827 N.Y.S.2d 256 (2d Dep't 2006). Once plaintiff owner or its agent revoked any license, moreover, as a former licensee defendant was entitl......
  • Christian v. Town of Riga, No. 08-CV-6557.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court of Western District of New York
    • August 17, 2009
    ...of action for trespass requires an intrusion upon the property of another without permission. See Curwin v. Verizon Communications (LEC), 35 A.D.3d 645, 827 N.Y.S.2d 256 (2d Dept.2006) ("Entering upon the land of another without permission, even if innocently or by mistake, constitutes tres......
  • Marone v. Kally
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • September 18, 2013
    ...Volunteer Fire Assn. of Tappan, Inc. v. County of Rockland, 101 A.D.3d 853, 956 N.Y.S.2d 102;Curwin v. Verizon Communications [ LEC ], 35 A.D.3d 645, 827 N.Y.S.2d 256;Burger v. Singh, 28 A.D.3d 695, 698, 816 N.Y.S.2d 478). Since the subject strip was owned by the plaintiffs by adverse posse......
  • Volunteer Fire Ass'n of Tappan, Inc. v. Cnty. of Rockland
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • December 12, 2012
    ...( State of New York v. Johnson, 45 A.D.3d 1016, 1019, 846 N.Y.S.2d 671;see [101 A.D.3d 856]Curwin v. Verizon Communications [ LEC ], 35 A.D.3d 645, 827 N.Y.S.2d 256). A cause of action alleging trespass is distinguishable from a cause of action alleging a de facto taking, since a trespass m......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
16 cases
  • Am. Infertility of N.Y., P.C. v. Verizon N.Y. Inc., 159892/2015
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New York)
    • December 10, 2020
    ...v. Verizon NY Inc. , 18 N.Y.3d 777, 791-92, 944 N.Y.S.2d 732, 967 N.E.2d 1177 (2012). See Curwin v. Verizon Communications (LEC) , 35 A.D.3d 645, 646, 827 N.Y.S.2d 256 (2d Dep't 2006). Once plaintiff owner or its agent revoked any license, moreover, as a former licensee defendant was entitl......
  • Christian v. Town of Riga, No. 08-CV-6557.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court of Western District of New York
    • August 17, 2009
    ...of action for trespass requires an intrusion upon the property of another without permission. See Curwin v. Verizon Communications (LEC), 35 A.D.3d 645, 827 N.Y.S.2d 256 (2d Dept.2006) ("Entering upon the land of another without permission, even if innocently or by mistake, constitutes tres......
  • Marone v. Kally
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • September 18, 2013
    ...Volunteer Fire Assn. of Tappan, Inc. v. County of Rockland, 101 A.D.3d 853, 956 N.Y.S.2d 102;Curwin v. Verizon Communications [ LEC ], 35 A.D.3d 645, 827 N.Y.S.2d 256;Burger v. Singh, 28 A.D.3d 695, 698, 816 N.Y.S.2d 478). Since the subject strip was owned by the plaintiffs by adverse posse......
  • Volunteer Fire Ass'n of Tappan, Inc. v. Cnty. of Rockland
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • December 12, 2012
    ...( State of New York v. Johnson, 45 A.D.3d 1016, 1019, 846 N.Y.S.2d 671;see [101 A.D.3d 856]Curwin v. Verizon Communications [ LEC ], 35 A.D.3d 645, 827 N.Y.S.2d 256). A cause of action alleging trespass is distinguishable from a cause of action alleging a de facto taking, since a trespass m......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT