From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Selter v. MCM Distributors, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 4, 2002
299 A.D.2d 332 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)

Opinion

2001-05812

Submitted May 21, 2002.

November 4, 2002.

In an action, inter alia, to recover for damage to property, the defendants Nostrand Realty Co. and Irving Borenstein, individually and d/b/a Nostrand Realty Co., appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Huttner, J.), dated May 11, 2001, which denied their motion for partial summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as sought to recover for flood damage to the plaintiffs' property.

Carole A. Burns Associates, Mineola, N.Y. (Andre N. Poulis of counsel), for appellants.

Alex S. Rosenblum, Brooklyn, N.Y., for respondents.

Before: A. GAIL PRUDENTI, P.J., DAVID S. RITTER, LEO F. McGINITY, HOWARD MILLER, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is modified, on the law, by adding a provision thereto that upon searching the record, summary judgment is awarded to the plaintiffs on the issue of liability; as so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for a hearing on the issue of damages.

Although the plaintiffs did not cross-move for summary judgment, this court is authorized by CPLR 3212(b) to search the record and grant summary judgment to a nonmoving party with respect to an issue that was the subject of the motion before the court (see Dunham v. Hilco Constr. Co., 89 N.Y.2d 425, 429; Merritt Hill Vineyards v. Windy Hgts. Vineyard, 61 N.Y.2d 106; Image Clothing v. State Natl. Ins. Co., 291 A.D.2d 377). Upon searching the record, we find, as a matter of law, that the defendants Nostrand Realty Co. and Irving Borenstein, individually and d/b/a Nostrand Realty Co., artificially diverted surface waters onto the plaintiffs' property (cf. Kossoff v. Rathgeb-Walsh, Inc., 3 N.Y.2d 583, 589-590; Tatzel v. Kaplan, 292 A.D.2d 440; Gollomp v. Dubbs, 283 A.D.2d 550; Langdon v. Town of Webster, 238 A.D.2d 888). Accordingly, the plaintiffs are entitled to summary judgment on the issue of liability.

PRUDENTI, P.J., RITTER, McGINITY and H. MILLER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Selter v. MCM Distributors, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 4, 2002
299 A.D.2d 332 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
Case details for

Selter v. MCM Distributors, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:JOEL SELTER, ET AL., respondents, v. MCM DISTRIBUTORS, INC., defendant…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Nov 4, 2002

Citations

299 A.D.2d 332 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
749 N.Y.S.2d 94

Citing Cases

Weaver v. Latimore

It is well-settled that "a court may search the record and grant summary judgment in favor of a nonmoving…

Rosado v. Bagnall

Upon a motion for summary judgment, the court has the inherent power to search the record where appropriate…