In a property dispute between two neighbors, AP and AR, P filed a small claims action seeking compensation for the removal of her driveway's curb, while R counterclaimed for damages related to her driveway.
The central issue was determining the rightful ownership of the curb and whether R was responsible for its removal. P. argued that the curb was on her property, which was supported by a land survey entered into evidence. R, meanwhile, maintained that she had acted within her rights. Following a nonjury trial, the District Court ruled in favor of P, awarding her $2,100—an amount lower than her initial ($2800) claim but deemed appropriate given the circumstances. R's counterclaim was not successful.
On appeal, the Appellate Term, Second Department, reviewed whether substantial justice had been served in accordance with applicable legal principles. Key to its decision was the credibility of the evidence presented at trial, particularly P’s survey, which confirmed her ownership of the disputed curb. Additionally, testimony indicated that R had instructed workers to remove the curb, further supporting the ruling in P's favor. Given these findings, the AT2 upheld the District Court’s decision, and affirmed the judgment without modification.
That had to curb R's enthusiasm ....
# # #
DECISION