Zutt v State of New York
2011 NY Slip Op 00509 [80 AD3d 758]
January 25, 2011
Appellate Division, Second Department
As corrected through Wednesday, March 9, 2011


William A. Zutt et al., Respondents,
v
State of New York,Appellant.

[*1]Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York, N.Y. (Richard Dearing and MonicaWagner of counsel), for appellant.

Daniels and Porco, LLP, Carmel, N.Y. (Robert C. Lusardi of counsel), forrespondents.

In an action, inter alia, for permanent injunctive relief to abate a private nuisance, thedefendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Putnam County (O'Rourke, J.), enteredOctober 20, 2009, which granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on their cause ofaction to permanently enjoin the defendant from draining water onto their property, and directedit to comply with the recommendations of the plaintiffs' expert to direct storm water away fromthe plaintiffs' property and into a natural stream nearby.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court properly granted the plaintiffs'motion for summary judgment on their cause of action to permanently enjoin the defendant fromcontinuing to drain storm water runoff onto their property (see Higgins v Village of OrchardPark, 277 AD2d 989, 991 [2000], cf. Warm v State of New York, 308 AD2d 534,536 [2003]). The plaintiffs made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter oflaw, and the defendant failed to raise any triable issues of fact in opposition (see Alvarez vProspect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]; Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr.,64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]). The conclusory assertions of the defendant's expert witness wereinsufficient to oppose the motion for summary judgment (see generally Gonzalez v 98 MagLeasing Corp., 95 NY2d 124, 129 [2000]; Mandel v Benn, 67 AD3d 746 [2009]).

"[A] court of equity has an obligation to go no further than absolutely necessary to protect therights of the complaining parties. The injunction must be framed as narrowly as possible"(Antinelli v Toner, 74 AD2d 996, 997 [1980] [citations omitted]). Here, the SupremeCourt properly directed the defendant to comply with the recommendations of the plaintiffs'expert to direct storm water away from the plaintiffs' property and into a natural stream nearby.Prudenti, P.J., Angiolillo, Florio and Sgroi, JJ., concur.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.