From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Dietrich v. Cedarcrest Homeowners Assn.

Appellate Term of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 22, 2003
2003 N.Y. Slip Op. 51689 (N.Y. App. Term 2003)

Opinion

2002-1751 OR C.

Decided December 22, 2003.

Appeal by defendant from a small claims judgment of the Justice Court, Village of Florida, Orange County (D. Coleman, J.), entered June 4, 2002, which awarded plaintiff the sum of $3,000.

Judgment unanimously reversed without costs and action dismissed.

PRESENT: DOYLE, P.J., RUDOLPH and SKELOS, JJ.


In this small claims action, plaintiff seeks to recover damages for personal injuries she sustained when she slipped and fell on wet grass adjacent to the residence she was renting. Plaintiff claims that defendant, a homeowners' association, is liable to her because defendant built a retaining wall adjacent to her property line and water flows through the retaining wall and across a six inch strip of property owned by defendant where it then forms pools on plaintiffs lawn which has inadequate drainage to accommodate the water.

"It is well settled that a landowner will not be held liable for damages * * * caused by the flow of surface water due to improvements to his or her land provided that the improvements were made in good faith to fit the property for some rational use, and that the water was not drained onto the other property by artificial means, such as pipes or ditches * * *" ( Tatzel v. Kaplan, 292 AD2d 440, 441 [citations omitted]; see also Kossoff v. Rathgeb-Walsh, 3 NY2d 583; Gollomp v. Dubbs, 283 AD2d 550; Betancourt v. City of New York, 194 AD2d 759). Inasmuch as the retaining wall was apparently built in good faith so that the adjacent property could be put to a rational use and defendant did not use a pipe, drain or ditch to direct surface water onto plaintiffs property, defendant is not liable to plaintiff for any damages which plaintiff sustained when she slipped and fell due to the water (see Kossoff, 3 NY2d 583; Tatzel, 292 AD2d 440; Gollomp, 283 AD2d 550; Betancourt, 194 AD2d 759). Since the judgment did not render substantial justice in accordance with the rules and principles of substantive law (see UJCA 1807), the judgment must be reversed and the action dismissed.


Summaries of

Dietrich v. Cedarcrest Homeowners Assn.

Appellate Term of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 22, 2003
2003 N.Y. Slip Op. 51689 (N.Y. App. Term 2003)
Case details for

Dietrich v. Cedarcrest Homeowners Assn.

Case Details

Full title:TAMMY DIETRICH, Respondent, v. CEDARCREST HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, C/O…

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

Date published: Dec 22, 2003

Citations

2003 N.Y. Slip Op. 51689 (N.Y. App. Term 2003)