Marino v. Dwyer-Berry Const. Corp.

Decision Date30 January 1989
Docket NumberDWYER-BERRY
CitationMarino v. Dwyer-Berry Const. Corp., 537 N.Y.S.2d 231, 146 A.D.2d 748 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)
PartiesRonald MARINO, Respondent, v.CONSTRUCTION CORP., et al., Defendants, County of Dutchess, Appellant.
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Stephen J. Wing, Co. Atty., Poughkeepsie (Keith P. Byron, of counsel), for appellant.

Rosten & Rosten, Yorktown Heights (Bernard Meyerson, of counsel), for respondent.

Before MOLLEN, P.J., and THOMPSON, RUBIN and SPATT, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for negligence, the defendant County of Dutchess appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Beisner, J.), entered June 29, 1987, which denied its motion to dismiss the plaintiff's complaint as against it.

ORDERED that the order is reversed, with costs, the motion is granted and the complaint is dismissed insofar as asserted against the County of Dutchess.

On June 3, 1985, subdivision map No. 7537 was approved by the Dutchess County Health Department and filed in the Dutchess County Clerk's office, with an indication that lot No. 8 had seven and one-half feet of clay loam, sufficient to install a sewerage system. Professional Engineer Michael Morris had allegedly confirmed that all the lots on this map satisfied the criteria for building. In addition, a legend declaring that the owner of the property was familiar with the map, its contents and its legends, and consented to its terms and conditions as well as to its filing, was signed by Richard G. Barger, on behalf of BNH Developing Corp. The specifications of the map corroborated the depth and percolation tests performed in June 1980 by engineer George Haughney, the results of which had been inspected by Robert Gray on behalf of the Dutchess County Health Department.

On or about March 26, 1986, all 11 lots included on map No. 7537 were conveyed by BNH Developing Corp. to Dwyer-Berry Construction Corp. (hereinafter Dwyer-Berry), which in turn had contracted on or about March 12, 1986, to sell lot No. 8 to the plaintiff. The plaintiff received title on April 10, 1986.

On May 21, 1986, the plaintiff informed the Dutchess County Health Department that he believed that the conditions existing at the site were not accurately reflected on the subdivision map in question. A Public Health Engineer visited the property and ascertained that the soil condition was not as represented on the map, and that consequently the proposed sewerage system was not feasible. By October 1986 the plaintiff had learned that the plot was "unbuildable," and this information was subsequently confirmed in a letter to him from the Dutchess County Supervising Public Health Engineer dated February 24,...

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
2 cases
  • Okie v. Village of Hamburg
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • March 11, 1994
    ...(see generally, O'Connor v. City of New York, 58 N.Y.2d 184, 460 N.Y.S.2d 485, 447 N.E.2d 33, supra; Marino v. Dwyer-Berry Constr. Corp., 146 A.D.2d 748, 537 N.Y.S.2d 231; Rolfe v. Village of Falconer, 96 A.D.2d 1142, 467 N.Y.S.2d 453, supra The Village did not assume a duty over and above ......
  • Langdon v. Town of Webster
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • April 25, 1997
    ...defendant municipality owed him a special duty in contrast to a general duty owed to the public (see, Marino v. Dwyer-Berry Constr. Corp., 146 A.D.2d 748, 750, 537 N.Y.S.2d 231) or whether defendant municipality committed an affirmative act that caused or set in motion "a chain of events le......