Redwood Prop. Holdings, LLC v. Christopher

• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
• Citation: Redwood Prop. Holdings, LLC v. Christopher, 177 N.Y.S.3d 895(Mem) (N.Y. App. Div. 2022)
• Decision Date: 07 December 2022
• Docket Number: 2021–03945,Index No. 611813/20
• Parties: REDWOOD PROPERTY HOLDINGS, LLC, appellant, v. Jhon CHRISTOPHER, etc., et al., respondents.

177 N.Y.S.3d 895 (Mem)

REDWOOD PROPERTY HOLDINGS, LLC, appellant,

v.Jhon CHRISTOPHER, etc., et al., respondents.

2021–03945

Index No. 611813/20

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Argued—October 4, 2022

December 7, 2022

Messina Perillo Hill, LLP, Sayville, NY (Lisa A. Perillo of counsel), for appellant.

Lieb at Law, P.C., Smithtown, NY (Andrew M. Lieb and Richard Hermer–Fried of counsel), for respondents.

MARK C. DILLON, J.P., JOSEPH J. MALTESE, PAUL WOOTEN, LARA J. GENOVESI, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

In an action to recover damages for private nuisance and for injunctive relief, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Paul J. Baisley, Jr., J.), dated April 21, 2021. The order granted the defendants’ motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the complaint.

ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the defendants’ motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the complaint is denied.

The plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for private nuisance and for injunctive relief. The defendants moved pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the complaint. In an order dated April 21, 2021, the Supreme Court granted the defendants’ motion. The plaintiff appeals.

"On a motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action, the court must accept the facts alleged in the complaint as true, accord the plaintiff the benefit of every possible favorable inference, and determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory" ( Shah v. Exxis, Inc., 138 A.D.3d 970, 971, 31 N.Y.S.3d 512 ; see Goshen v. Mutual Life Ins. Co. of N.Y., 98 N.Y.2d 314, 326, 746 N.Y.S.2d 858, 774 N.E.2d 1190 ; Leon v. Martinez, 84 N.Y.2d 83, 87–88, 614 N.Y.S.2d 972, 638 N.E.2d 511 ; Sokol v. Leader, 74 A.D.3d 1180, 904 N.Y.S.2d 153 ). "Whether the complaint will later survive a motion for summary judgment, or whether the plaintiff will ultimately be able to prove its claims, of course, plays no part in the determination of a prediscovery CPLR 3211 motion to dismiss" ( Shaya B. Pac., LLC v. Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker, LLP, 38 A.D.3d 34, 38, 827 N.Y.S.2d 231 ; see EBC I, Inc. v. Goldman, Sachs & Co., 5 N.Y.3d 11, 19, 799 N.Y.S.2d 170, 832 N.E.2d 26 ). "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’ " ( Curry v. Matranga, 194 A.D.3d 1011, 1012–1013, 144 N.Y.S.3d 594, quoting Copart Indus., Inc. v. Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y., 41 N.Y.2d 564, 570, 394 N.Y.S.2d 169, 362 N.E.2d 968 ). "[E]xcept for the issue of whether the plaintiff has the requisite property interest, each of the other elements is a question for the jury, unless the evidence is undisputed" ( Broxmeyer v. United Capital Corp., 79 A.D.3d 780, 782–783, 914 N.Y.S.2d 181 [internal quotation marks omitted]). Here, the plaintiff adequately pleaded a cause of action alleging private nuisance (see Ford v. Fink, 84 A.D.3d 725, 728, 924 N.Y.S.2d 94 ). Thus, the Supreme Court erred in directing dismissal of the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7).

Moreover, the Supreme Court erred to the extent that it directed dismissal of the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1). "To succeed on a motion to dismiss based upon documentary evidence pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1), the documentary evidence must utterly refute the plaintiff's factual allegations, conclusively establishing a defense as a matter of law" ( Gould v....