Opinion
Index No. SC-000023-24-23/LF
04-26-2024
Michelle Neverusky-Brindeau, Claimant, v. Chelsea Hanselman, Defendant.
Michelle Neverusky-Brindeau, Claimant, pro se Chelsea Hanselman, Defendant, pro se
Unpublished Opinion
Michelle Neverusky-Brindeau, Claimant, pro se
Chelsea Hanselman, Defendant, pro se
Joshua P. Bannister, J.
HON. JOSHUA P. BANNISTER, LITTLE FALLS CITY COURT JUDGE
Claimant filed this small claim on January 24, 2024, against Defendant. The parties appeared for a settlement conference on March 21, 2024, and the matter proceeded to a bench trial on March 28, 2024.
The gravamen of the claim is that the Defendant removed the chain link fence between their respective properties, cut down some trees, and then installed a fence over the property line. The Claimant submitted several exhibits including a survey, before and after pictures, and estimates. The damages sought were $2,530 for stump removal, fence replacement, and mature tree replacement. There was conflicting testimony at the trial whether the work was done with the permission of the Claimant.
The court's duty in a small claims case is to do substantial justice between the parties according to the rules of substantive law (UCCA § 1804). The court has heard the testimony of the parties, observed their demeanor in court, judged their credibility, considered all the evidence, and assigned the evidence it's appropriate weight.
"It is the value of the right of which the plaintiff has been deprived, namely, the enjoyment of the premises with the trees, and to the extent that he has been deprived he is entitled to recover. If the value of his property has been depreciated by the wrongful act of the defendant he is entitled to recover to the extent that it has been depreciated. The rule of damages has been laid down in many adjudicated cases that where property has been interfered with and has depreciated in value and without the destruction of the fee, the owner is entitled to recover the difference in the value of the premises before and after the interference." Donahue v. Keystone Gas Co, 90 A.D. 386, 390-91 (Fourth Dept, 1904), aff'd, 181 NY 313 [1905]).
The court has reviewed the before and after pictures submitted by the Claimant which clearly demonstrate the Claimant made improvements to her home since the initial pictures were taken. The removal of the overgrown trees improved the overall appearance of the property and was done without expense to the Claimant. It can hardly be said that the loss of trees and the privacy fence caused any loss of value to her property. Accordingly, the court finds the removal of the trees and brush were beneficial to the property's value.
The claimant also asserts a claim of trespass that the fence is approximately one foot over her property line. This is demonstrated by the pictorial evidence showing the defendant's fence goes past the Stephen P Holland fence by approximately one foot. However, both the survey submitted by the Claimant as well as the flood zone map show that the Holland fence may be short of the property line. Both the survey and the flood zone map also demonstrate that the fence lines in the area are not consistently laid on exact property lines. Claimant wants to assert a claim for the defendant's trespass when the fence is on her property line while at the same time ignoring the fact that the flood zone map shows that she (and her predecessors in title) enjoyed an extra foot of the Defendant's property for quite some time. Even assuming for the sake of argument that the defendant's fence encroaches on the claimant's property, the court finds that the encroachment is de minimus and will award only nominal damages to the Claimant (see Wing Ming Properties (USA) Ltd v Mott Operating Corp, 79 N.Y.2d 1021 [1992]).
Therefore, it is hereby ordered that judgment be entered in favor of the Claimant and awarding her damages in the amount of $1 plus court costs.
This constitutes the decision and order of the court.