Liston v. Town of Newburgh

CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
CitationListon v. Town of Newburgh, 90 A.D.3d 861, 934 N.Y.S.2d 712, 2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 9282 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)
Decision Date20 December 2011
PartiesAndrew LISTON, et al., appellants, v. TOWN OF NEWBURGH, respondent.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Sussman & Watkins, Goshen, N.Y. (Michael H. Sussman of counsel), for appellants.

Drake, Loeb, Heller, Kennedy, Gogerty, Gaba & Rodd, PLLC, New Windsor, N.Y. (Stephen J. Gaba and Ralph L. Puglielle, Jr., of counsel), for respondent.

In an action to recover damages for negligence, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (McGuirk, J.), dated January 7, 2011, which granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint as time-barred.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

General Municipal Law § 50–i(1) states, in part, that “[n]o action ... shall be prosecuted ... against a ... town ... for ... damage to real or personal property alleged to have been sustained by reason of the negligence ... of such ... town ... unless ... the action ... shall be commenced within one year and ninety days after the happening of the event upon which the claim is based.” Here, the plaintiffs alleged, inter alia, that the Town of Newburgh's negligent installation of a storm drainage system in May 2007 caused or exacerbated flooding to their property on March 5, 2008. Significantly, however, the plaintiffs make no allegation of negligent maintenance.

Under these circumstances, “the happening of the event upon which the claim [was] based” (General Municipal Law § 50–i[1] ) was the May 2007 storm drainage installation ( see Klein v. City of Yonkers, 53 N.Y.2d 1011, 1014, 442 N.Y.S.2d 477, 425 N.E.2d 865; Johnson v. Marianetti, 202 A.D.2d 970, 970–971, 609 N.Y.S.2d 494; Scarzfava v. City of Newburgh, 255 A.D.2d 436, 680 N.Y.S.2d 595; Pleasant Ridge Townhouses Homeowners' Assn. v. T & D Constr. Corp., 181 A.D.2d 871, 872, 581 N.Y.S.2d 857; Nebbia v. County of Monroe, 92 A.D.2d 724, 461 N.Y.S.2d 127). Accordingly, as measured from the date of this “occurrence,” the plaintiffs' commencement of their action in May 2009 was untimely ( see Regatta Condominium Assn. v. Village of Mamaroneck,303 A.D.2d 737, 738, 758 N.Y.S.2d 348).

The plaintiffs' remaining contentions are without merit.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the Town's motion to dismiss the complaint as time-barred.

RIVERA, J.P., BALKIN, ENG and AUSTIN, JJ., concur.

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
7 cases
  • Madden v. Town of Greene
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court
    • June 29, 2012
    ...highway system for a number of years and was reconstructed approximately two years prior to the accident]; cf. Liston v. Town of Newburgh, 90 A.D.3d 861, 934 N.Y.S.2d 712 [2011] [claim for negligent installation of a storm drainage system that subsequently flooded—for which, unlike roads, t......
  • 461 Broadway, LLC v. Vill. of Monticello
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • November 23, 2016
    ...at 1554, 29 N.Y.S.3d 579 ; Harrington v. County of Suffolk, 102 A.D.3d 923, 924, 958 N.Y.S.2d 748 [2013] ; Liston v. Town of Newburgh, 90 A.D.3d 861, 862, 934 N.Y.S.2d 712 [2011] ). We reach a different conclusion with respect to plaintiff's alternative claim that defendant failed to proper......
  • N.Y. State Elec. & Gas Corp. v. Cnty. of Chemung
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • March 31, 2016
    ...1960s are time-barred (see Harrington v. County of Suffolk, 102 A.D.3d 923, 924, 958 N.Y.S.2d 748 [2013] ; Liston v. Town of Newburgh, 90 A.D.3d 861, 862, 934 N.Y.S.2d 712 [2011] ). On the other hand, we find that plaintiff's claims that defendants failed to maintain the sewer and water mai......
  • Lolly v. Brookdale Univ. Hosp. & Med. Ctr.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • December 20, 2011
  • Get Started for Free