Woodhull v. Town of Riverhead, 2006-11179

Decision Date18 December 2007
Docket Number2006-11179
Citation46 A.D.3d 802,849 N.Y.S.2d 79,2007 NY Slip Op 10141
PartiesJAMES WOODHULL, Respondent, v. TOWN OF RIVERHEAD, Appellant.
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and those branches of the defendant's motion which were for summary judgment dismissing the first, third, fourth, and sixth causes of action are granted.

The plaintiff is the owner of real property upon which he maintains and rents five trailers. On October 1, 2001, Richard Downs, a code enforcement officer for the defendant Town of Riverhead, was on property adjoining the plaintiff's land investigating a litter complaint when he observed that substantial improvements had been made to one of the plaintiff's trailers. On October 18, 2001, after ascertaining that the plaintiff had not obtained a building permit to make such improvements, Downs returned to the plaintiff's property to issue him a summons. Upon arriving there, he saw an unlicensed contractor performing work on the trailer. As a result, Downs radioed another code enforcement officer Matthew White, and requested that he bring a stop-work order to the property. Once White arrived with the stop-work order, Downs completed it and asked White to post it on the trailer. At that point, White entered the property, walked over to the trailer upon which work was being performed and, with a staple gun, affixed the stop-work order to the handrail of the trailer's front steps. White then returned to the public right-of-way where he and Downs had been standing. While both officers testified at their deposition that they never saw a "no trespassing" sign posted on the property, the plaintiff stated to the contrary. A few minutes later, the plaintiff arrived at the property and was issued a summons for violating section 52-6 (A) of the Code of the Town of Riverhead. Subsequently, a settlement was reached and the summons was dismissed. The plaintiff then commenced the instant action alleging, inter alia, trespass, and, pursuant to 42 USC § 1983, a violation of his constitutional right to be free from unreasonable searches based on White's entry onto the property for the purpose of posting the stop-work order.

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees the "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects from unreasonable searches." Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, no search occurred here. A search involves "look[ing] over or through for the purpose of finding something" (Kyllo v United States, 533 US 27, 32 n 1 [2001], quoting...

To continue reading

Request your trial
34 cases
  • Castanza v. The Town Of Brookhaven
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York
    • March 22, 2010
    ...authorized to abate public nuisances are privileged against trespass actions at common law”); Woodhull v. Town of Riverhead, 46 A.D.3d 802, 804, 849 N.Y.S.2d 79 (N.Y.App.Div.2007) (“The defendant satisfied its prima facie burden establishing its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by......
  • Corsello v. Verizon N.Y. Inc.
    • United States
    • New York Court of Appeals
    • September 14, 2010
    ...is an intentional physical entry onto the property of another without justification or permission ( see Woodhull v. Town of Riverhead, 46 A.D.3d 802, 804, 849 N.Y.S.2d 79; Long Is. Gynecological Servs. v. Murphy, 298 A.D.2d 504, 748 N.Y.S.2d 776). While a trespass and a de facto taking are ......
  • Gelles v. Sauvage
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New York)
    • February 21, 2023
    ...of Rockland, 101 A.D.3d 853, 855 [2d Dept 2012]; Carlson v Zimmerman, 63 A.D.3d 772, 773 [2d Dept 2009]; Woodhull v Town of Riverhead, 46 A.D.3d 802, 804 [2d Dept 2007]). Trespass is also defined as "the invasion of a person's right to exclusive possession of his land" (Berenger v 261 W. LL......
  • Marone v. Kally
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • September 18, 2013
    ...of Rockland, 101 A.D.3d 853, 855, 956 N.Y.S.2d 102;see Rager v. McCloskey, 305 N.Y. 75, 79, 111 N.E.2d 214;Woodhull v. Town of Riverhead, 46 A.D.3d 802, 804, 849 N.Y.S.2d 79). “Intent is defined as [971 N.Y.S.2d 328]intending the act which produces the unlawful intrusion, where the intrusio......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT