| Greco v Incorporated Vil. of Freeport |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 07588 [66 AD3d 836] |
| October 20, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Vincent Greco et al., Appellants, v Incorporated Village ofFreeport, Respondent. |
—[*1] Harrison J. Edwards, Village Attorney, Freeport, N.Y., for respondent.
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for negligent construction and operation of apower plant, nuisance, and trespass, the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so muchof an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Palmieri, J.), dated June 11, 2007, as grantedthose branches of the defendant's motion which were for summary judgment dismissing the fifthcause of action, and dismissing the first, second, and fourth causes of action to the extent thatthey are based upon acts alleged to have occurred more than one year and 90 days prior to thecommencement of this action.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The defendant Incorporated Village of Freeport constructed a power plant near the plaintiffs'property in 1969. In 2002 the plaintiffs commenced this action, inter alia, to recover damages fornegligent construction and operation of the power plant, nuisance, and trespass. After discoverywas completed, the defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on theground that the statute of limitations for all of the plaintiffs' claims had expired.
The defendant met its initial burden of establishing, prima facie, that the plaintiffs' fifthcause of action sounding in negligence was time-barred (see General Municipal Law§ 50-i; Town of Hempstead v Lizza Indus., 293 AD2d 739, 740 [2002]). Inresponse, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The plaintiffs' contention that thedefendant's negligent operation of the power plant amounted to a continuous wrong so as to tollthe limitations period for a negligence claim is without merit (see Klein v City of Yonkers,53 NY2d 1011 [1981]; HeritageHills Socy., Ltd. v Heritage Dev. Group, Inc., 56 AD3d 426, 426-427 [2008]; Porcaro v Town of Beekman, 15AD3d 377, 378 [2005]; Condello v Town of Irondequoit, 262 AD2d 940, 941[1999]).
As the Supreme Court correctly determined, the plaintiffs' trespass and nuisance causes ofaction are time-barred to the extent that they are based upon acts alleged to have occurred morethan one year and 90 days prior to the commencement of the action (see Sutton Investing Corp. v City ofSyracuse, 48 AD3d 1141, 1143 [2008]; Carhart v Village of Hamilton, 190AD2d 973 [1993]; Sova v Glasier, 192 [*2]AD2d 1069[1993]).
The plaintiffs' remaining contentions are without merit. Skelos, J.P., Fisher, Belen and Lott,JJ., concur. [See 16 Misc 3d 1129(A), 2007 NY Slip Op 51635(U).]