From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Generalow v. Steinberger

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 15, 1987
131 A.D.2d 634 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)

Opinion

June 15, 1987

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Nelson, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law, by deleting the damage award of $3,000; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed, with costs to the defendants.

The plaintiff and the defendants are the owners of adjoining property located in Nyack, New York. The plaintiff brought this action alleging that a driveway and retaining wall built by the defendants adjacent to her property encroached onto her property by approximately two feet.

The court properly found that while the plaintiff demonstrated that she was the record owner of the disputed property, the evidence established that title to all but 8.4 inches of that property had passed to the defendants by virtue of their adverse possession of the land (see, CPLR 212 [a]; RPAPL 311; Belotti v Bickhardt, 228 N.Y. 296; Risi v Interboro Indus. Parks, 99 A.D.2d 466).

We are also in agreement with the court that the plaintiff was not entitled to the drastic remedy of a mandatory injunction to compel the defendants to remove the encroaching structure. In light of the minor encroachment and the evidence that the wall was necessary to the defendants' property, the harm to the defendants in removing the wall would outweigh any corresponding benefit to the plaintiff (see, Medvin v Grauer, 46 A.D.2d 912; Lawrence v Mullen, 40 A.D.2d 871).

While the court may award damages in lieu of an injunction in an appropriate case (see, RPAPL 871), here the court improperly awarded the plaintiff damages in the principal sum of $3,000. The appropriate measure of damages is the difference between the value of the plaintiff's property with and without the encroachment (Lawrence v Mullen, supra). The plaintiff failed to produce any evidence as to a diminution in the value of her property which resulted from the encroachment, and thus the court's award of $3,000 representing the "minimum" amount of damages she may have suffered was speculative and improper. Weinstein, J.P., Rubin, Kooper and Sullivan, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Generalow v. Steinberger

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 15, 1987
131 A.D.2d 634 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)
Case details for

Generalow v. Steinberger

Case Details

Full title:OLGA GENERALOW, Appellant-Respondent, v. JEFFREY L. STEINBERGER et al.…

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

Date published: Jun 15, 1987

Citations

131 A.D.2d 634 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)

Citing Cases

Zhuang Li Cai v. Uddin

The evidence before the Supreme Court established that, at most, the alleged encroachment onto the…

Saint Mary Romanian Orthodox Church v. 73 M & C Realty LLC

The Court recognizes that encroachments of from 1 ½ to 3 ¾ inches onto another individual's property have…