From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Litwin v. Town of Huntington

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 2, 1998
248 A.D.2d 361 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Opinion

March 2, 1998

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Lama, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The plaintiffs, who operate a commercial nursery, cultivated a portion of the adjoining property, owned by the defendant Town of Huntington, with trees and other nursery stock. After the plaintiffs' adverse possession claims were dismissed (see, Litwin v. Town of Huntington, 208 A.D.2d 905), the appellants moved for partial summary judgment on their counterclaims seeking damages for trespass and other relief

The Supreme Court properly limited the appellants' damages to the rental value or net profits derived by the plaintiffs from their use of the defendants' property (see, De Camp v. Bullard, 159 N.Y. 450; Granchelli v. Johnson Bldg. Co., 85 A.D.2d 891; West St. Auto Serv. v. Schmidt, 26 A.D.2d 662; Bunke v. New York Tel. Co., 110 App. Div. 241, affd 188 N.Y. 600). The Supreme Court's conclusion that the appellants are entitled only to compensation for the acreage actually occupied and cultivated by the plaintiffs, rather than the entire parcel, is consistent with this measure of damages (see, Rose Val. Joint Venture v. Apollo Plaza Assocs., 178 A.D.2d 695).

The Supreme Court properly dismissed the appellants' claim to recover punitive damages. A party seeking to recover punitive damages for trespass on real property has the burden of proving that the trespasser acted with actual malice involving intentional wrongdoing, or that such conduct amounted to a wanton, willful, or reckless disregard of the party's right of possession (see, Ligo v. Gerould, 244 A.D.2d 852; UA-Columbia Cablevision v. Fraken Bldrs., 114 A.D.2d 448; MacKennan v. Bern Realty Co., 30 A.D.2d 679). The appellants failed to make such a showing. We note that there is no merit to the appellants' contention that the "malice" element required in order to recover punitive damages is the equivalent of the "hostility" requirement of an adverse possession claim (see, Katona v. Low, 226 A.D.2d 433).

O'Brien, J. P., Sullivan, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Litwin v. Town of Huntington

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 2, 1998
248 A.D.2d 361 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
Case details for

Litwin v. Town of Huntington

Case Details

Full title:LEONARD LITWIN et al., Respondents, v. TOWN OF HUNTINGTON et al.…

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

Date published: Mar 2, 1998

Citations

248 A.D.2d 361 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
669 N.Y.S.2d 634

Citing Cases

Ricky D. West v. Hogan

We reject defendants' further contention that the court erred in awarding plaintiffs punitive damages. “In…

West v. Hogan

We reject defendants' further contention that the court erred in awarding plaintiffs punitive damages. "In…