New York Real Estate Lawyers New York OFFICE 225 Broadway, 8th Floor New York, NY 10007
Blog Home Attorney Profiles Firm News Community Newsletters Clients Rights Contact Us

« LUCAS IN THE TIMES: HOW "PREFERENTIAL" ARE SOME RENTS? | Main | WELCOME OUR NEWEST PARTNER, GLENN H. SPIEGEL »

THERE'S NO RAINING ON BLOOMINGDALE'S PARADE!

j0401835.jpgIn Bloomingdales, Inc. v. New York City Transit Authority, the New York City Transit Authority (NYCTA) had been repairing the electricity in the subway station near Bloomingdales' department store (on Third Avenue in Manhattan), when the retailer noticed its lower level flooded whenever it rained "heavily."

While Bloomingdales suspected there was a problem with the storm drainpipe, an inspection revealed it had been "cut and that a concrete duct was bisecting the pipe" causing water to enter the building rather than flow to the sewer.

When Bloomingdales filed suit against the NYCTA claiming negligence, trespass, and nuisance, the New York County Supreme Court found each of store's claims "time-barred" -- meaning that the time within which those claims could be asserted had passed.

On appeal, the Appellate Division, First Department, noted "a claim involving an underground trespass was not barred by the three-year statute of limitations for injury to property" because the continuous obstruction to the drainpipe created "successive causes of action." Therefore, instead of treating the NYCTA's severance of the drainpipe as a "single negligent act," the AD1 saw it as a "continuous interference" and thus allowed the case to proceed.

A lone dissenter -- Justice Sweeny -- believed Bloomingdales' claims weren't timely since there wasn't an "encroachment" onto the store's property and, therefore, no lasting effects from the NYCTA's severing of the drainpipe.

If this case reaches the Court of Appeals, will NYCTA be caught in its Bloomies?

 

j0286764.gifTo download a copy of the Appellate Division's decision, please use this link: Bloomingdales, Inc. v. New York City Transit Authority   

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.nyrealestatelawblog.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/2686

Comments

Is the joke you prefer "boxers"?

I'm afraid that's a personal question, Theresa.

Post a comment

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)


Search


Subscribe










Categories