Massaro v. Jaina Network Sys., Inc.
| Decision Date | 01 May 2013 |
| Citation | 964 N.Y.S.2d 588,2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 03066,106 A.D.3d 701 |
| Parties | Ralph MASSARO, et al., appellants, v. JAINA NETWORK SYSTEMS, INC., et al., respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Christian Browne, Uniondale, N.Y., for appellants.
Law Offices of Curtis Vasile, P.C., Merrick, N.Y. (Michael J. Dorry of counsel), for respondent Jaina Network Systems, Inc.
Akhilesh Krishna, Richmond Hill, N.Y., for respondent Neminath, Inc.
Ackerman, Levine, Cullen, Brickman & Limmer LLP, Great Neck, N.Y. (James A. Bradley of counsel), for respondent Building Department of Incorporated Village of Williston Park.
PETER B. SKELOS, J.P., DANIEL D. ANGIOLILLO, SHERI S. ROMAN, and ROBERT J. MILLER, JJ.
In an action, inter alia, for injunctive relief and to recover damages for nuisance, the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Brown, J.), dated February 17, 2012, as denied their motion for summary judgment on the first, second, and third causes of action and on the issue of liability on the fourth and fifth causes of action, and granted those branches of the separate cross motions of the defendant Jaina Network Systems, Inc., joined by the defendant Neminath, Inc., and the defendant Building Department of Incorporated Village of Williston Park which were for summary judgment dismissing the second and third causes of action insofar as asserted against each of them.
ORDERED that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof denying those branches of the plaintiffs' motion which were for summary judgment on the issue of liability on the fourth and fifth causes of action, and substituting therefor a provision granting those branches of the motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs to the plaintiffs.
In September 2010, the plaintiffs, owners of real property abutting or near real property owned by the defendant Neminath, Inc. (hereinafter Neminath), and leased by the defendant Jaina Network Systems, Inc. (hereinafter Jaina), commenced this action against those defendants and the defendant Building Department of Incorporated Village of Williston Park (hereinafter the Building Department), seeking, inter alia, injunctive relief and to recover damages for nuisance. The plaintiffs alleged, among other things, that Jaina's use of a building other than the main building on the subject premises (hereinafter the second building) violated a provision of the Code of the Incorporated Village of Williston Park (hereinafter the Village Code) purportedly prohibiting more than one “main building” per lot. In addition, the plaintiffs alleged that Jaina's placement and operation of certain equipment on the premises behind the second building, including heating, ventilation, and air conditioning and electrical generator units, violated the Village Code's rear-yard setback rules and noise limitations.
In an order dated February 17, 2012, the Supreme Court, inter alia, denied the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on the first, second, and third causes of action, which were, inter alia, for injunctive relief and on the issue of liability on the fourth and fifth causes of action, which were to recover damages for nuisance, and granted those branches of the separate cross motions of Jaina, joined by Neminath, and of the Building Department, which were for summary judgment dismissing the second and third causes of action insofar as asserted against each of them.
The plaintiffs failed to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the first cause of action which was, inter alia, to enjoin Jaina and Neminath from maintaining more than one “main building” on the premises, allegedly in violation of the Village Code. The doctrine of primary jurisdiction “generally enjoins courts having concurrent jurisdiction to refrain from adjudicating disputes within an administrative agency's authority, particularly where the agency's specialized experience and technical expertise is involved” ( Sohn v. Calderon, 78 N.Y.2d 755, 768, 579 N.Y.S.2d 940, 587 N.E.2d...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Swartz v. Swartz
...the corporate defendants, or that monetary damages would be inadequate compensation (see generally Massaro v. Jaina Network Sys., Inc., 106 A.D.3d 701, 703, 964 N.Y.S.2d 588 ; Lemle v. Lemle, 92 A.D.3d 494, 500, 939 N.Y.S.2d 15 ). Therefore, the Supreme Court properly granted those branches......
-
Taggart v. Costabile
...362 N.E.2d 968, citing Restatement [Second] of Torts § 822 [hereinafter the Second Restatement]; see Massaro v. Jaina Network Sys., Inc., 106 A.D.3d 701, 703, 964 N.Y.S.2d 588 ).14 N.Y.S.3d 392 Here, the plaintiffs alleged that the defendants' tenants repeatedly hosted large parties at all ......
-
Ascent Dev. v. 30-38 29th St.
...inadequate compensation (Ponte v Estate of Ponte, 172 A.D.3d 970, 974 [2d Dept 2019]; see generally Massaro v Jaina Network Sys., Inc., 106 A.D.3d 701, 703 [2d 2013]). That branch of defendants' motion which seeks to dismiss the eighth cause of action for judicial dissolution of SRS and 30-......
-
Aponte v. Estate of Aponte
...posed by the appellants or that monetary damages would be inadequate compensation (see generally Massaro v. Jaina Network Sys., Inc., 106 A.D.3d 701, 703, 964 N.Y.S.2d 588 ).We agree, however, with the Supreme Court's determination denying those branches of the appellants' motion which were......