Sullivan v. State

CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
CitationSullivan v. State, 34 A.D.3d 443, 824 N.Y.S.2d 135, 2006 NY Slip Op 8108 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)
Decision Date08 November 2006
Docket Number2005-09593.
PartiesROBERT G. SULLIVAN, Appellant, v. STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law and as a matter of discretion, without costs or disbursements, and the motion to dismiss the claim is denied.

In October 1997 the defendant State of New York took by eminent domain a temporary easement over a portion of a parcel of property then owned by the plaintiff Robert G. Sullivan and Pamela Liapakis, but now owned by Sullivan alone. According to a map filed in the office of the Nassau County Clerk, the temporary easement was "for use and exercisable during the elimination of the Mineola grade crossings until the approval of the completed work, unless sooner terminated if deemed no longer necessary for project purposes." In April 2000 the parties entered into an "agreement of adjustment" fixing the compensation due to Sullivan and Liapakis for the taking of the temporary easement. That agreement, by its terms, "supplemented" an "agreement for advanced payment" dated February 22, 1998, which is not part of the record. In July 2000 Sullivan and Liapakis executed a "release of owner" (hereinafter the release) with respect to their rights to compensation regarding the temporary easement, which was "in accordance with and pursuant to" the agreement of adjustment. The State released the property and purported to terminate the original temporary easement in June 2004, six years and eight months after taking it.

In October 2004 Sullivan filed this claim in the Court of Claims for compensation for the State's alleged de facto taking of a temporary easement. He claimed that the easement covered by the agreement of adjustment and release of owner was for a five-year period only, as purportedly set forth in an "explanation of acquisition/offer of settlement." He argued that the 20-month additional period during which the State possessed his property constituted a separate, de facto taking of an easement. The Court of Claims granted the State's motion to dismiss the claim on the ground that it was grounded in equity, and the Court of Claims does not have subject matter jurisdiction of claims sounding in equity. We reverse.

Sullivan claims that the agreements he and Liapakis entered into with the State and their release covered only the alleged five-year period of the temporary easement, and that his claim is only for the...

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
15 cases
  • Botach Mgmt. Grp. v. Gurash
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • April 13, 2016
    ...that ‘resolves all factual issues as a matter of law, and conclusively disposes of the plaintiff's claim’ ” (Sullivan v. State of New York, 34 A.D.3d 443, 445, 824 N.Y.S.2d 135, quoting Nevin v. Laclede Professional Prods., 273 A.D.2d 453, 453, 711 N.Y.S.2d 735 ; see GuideOne Specialty Ins.......
  • Snyder v. Allstate Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • February 2, 2010
    ...that ‘resolves all factual issues as a matter of law, and conclusively disposes of the plaintiff's claim’ ” ( Sullivan v. State of New York, 34 A.D.3d 443, 445, 824 N.Y.S.2d 135, quoting Nevin v. Laclede Professional Prods., 273 A.D.2d 453, 453, 711 N.Y.S.2d 735; see GuideOne Specialty Ins.......
  • Wells Fargo Bank v. Islam
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • July 10, 2019
    ...869 N.Y.S.2d 112 ; see Michaels v. Sunrise Bldg. & Remodeling, Inc. , 65 A.D.3d 1021, 1024, 885 N.Y.S.2d 110 ; Sullivan v. State of New York , 34 A.D.3d 443, 445, 824 N.Y.S.2d 135 ; Weiner v. MKVII–Westchester , 292 A.D.2d 597, 598, 739 N.Y.S.2d 432 ). Here, the argument raised by the plain......
  • Archer v. Skokan
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • February 16, 2010
    ...that resolves all factual issues as a matter of law, and conclusively disposes of the plaintiff's claim' " ( Sullivan v. State of New York, 34 A.D.3d 443, 445, 824 N.Y.S.2d 135, quoting Nevin v. Laclede Professional Prods., 273 A.D.2d 453, 453, 711 N.Y.S.2d 735; see Snyder v. Allstate Ins. ......
  • Get Started for Free