Klein v Aronshtein

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Klein v Aronshtein 2012 NY Slip Op 31426(U) May 14, 2012 Sup Ct, Nassau County Docket Number: 16338/00 Judge: Denise L. Sher Republished from New York State Unified Court System's E-Courts Service. Search E-Courts (http://www.nycourts.gov/ecourts) for any additional information on this case. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. [* 1] SCAN SHORT FORM ORDER SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK PRESENT: HON. DENISE L. SHER Acting Supreme Cour Justice ROBERT KLEIN and SUSAN KLEIN Plaintiffs TRIALIIS PART 31 NASSAU COUNTY Index No. : 16338/00 Motion Seq. Nos. : 03 Motion Dates: 03/05/12 04/09/12 - against - DIMITRY ARONSHTEIN and OLGA ARONSHTEIN Defendants. The followine papers have been read on these motions: Papers Numbered Notice of Motion (Seq. No. 03). Affdavit. Affirmation and Exhibit and Memorandum of Law Notice of Cross- Motion (Seq. No. 04). Affirmation. Affdavit and Exhibits Reply Affrmation in Furher Support of Motion (Seq. No. 03) and in Opposition to Cross-Motion (Seq. No. 04) and Exhibit Affirmation in Reply and Furher Support of Cross-Motion (Seq. No. 04) and Exhibits Upon the foregoing papers , it is ordered that the motion is decided as follows: Plaintiffs move (Seq. No. 03), pursuant to CPLR 3212 , for an order granting them summar judgment. Defendants oppose the motion and cross-move (Seq. No. 04), pursuant to CPLR 3212 , for an order granting them summar judgment dismissing plaintiffs ' Verified Complaint and for judgment inter alia on their first and second Counterclaims. Plaintiffs and defendants both own adjacent residential properties constrcted along the [* 2] so-called " Waukena Waterway" in Oceanside , New York. Support Exhibit B See Defendants ' Affrmation in 5. At the location where the paries ' homes are situated , the waterway essentially terminates in a right angle formed by two intersecting street lines. Plaintiffs ' home is the first, water- facing propert on one of the intersecting streets (Freeman Avenue), while See defendants ' home is the first water- facing home along the other street (Poplar Street). Defendants ' Affirmation in Support Exhibit B According to defendants , when they originally purchased their main residence in 1997 they also acquired title to " Lot 64" - an underwater parcel abutting the paries ' respective water- facing propert lines. Notably, Lot 64 is also directly beneath the comer location where both paries have positioned their respective floats and docks. Support Exhibit , 14- 15; Defendants ' Affirmation in Support See Defendants ' Affrmation in 13; Defendants Affirmation in Support Exhibits F , H and 1. To the extent discemable from the paries submissions , when viewed from the water s surface , there is no visible line of demarcation separating or distinguishing the surface water located above defendants ' Lot 64 from the canal See water directly above the abutting, Town-owned portion or bed of the waterway. Defendants ' Affrmation in Support Exhibit C 24; Defendants ' Affirmation in Support Exhibits D and E. At some point in 1999 , defendants apparently obtained a dock building permit , after which they: (1) removed and/or relocated plaintiffs ' existing float and ramp, thereby allegedly rendering access to the waterway unduly difficult; and (2) then installed a new dock and float adjacent to their own propert. See Plaintiffs ' Affidavit in Support 6; Defendants ' Affrmation in Support Exhibits K and L. Plaintiffs claim that , prior to the point when the defendants [* 3] improperly relocated or moved their dock , it had been continuously positioned in the water directly above the "Nort-Northeast" portion of Lot 64 - allegedly for well over ten years. Plaintiffs ' Affidavit in Support ~ See 6; Defendants ' Affrmation in Support Exhibit B ~~ 10- 12. Defendants contend , however , that afer they installed their dock in the Spring of 2000 plaintiffs , in spiteful retaliation, placed an unlicensed and immobile " house boat" behind the new dock. The boat , which is stil present , allegedly impinges upon the defendants ' ability to See access the adjacent waterway and exercise their riparian rights. Support ~ 17- 18; Defendants ' Affirmation in Defendants ' Affirmation in Support Exhibit H; Defendants ' Affrmation in 26 and 30; Defendants ' Affirmation in Support Exhibit J pp. 14- Support Exhibit C ~~ 25 21. Thereafer , in October of 2000 , plaintiffs , who originally purchased their home in 1994 g 521 and 522 , which commenced the within adverse possession action pursuant to RPAPL govern claims not based on a "written instrent or Y.3d Murtagh 2d 8i6 (2006); (1996); Kelly v. Wallng , 2012 WL 1080325 (2012); Ray Bastianic v. Beacon Hudson Mm. Corp, 93 A.D.3d 691 , judgment." E.g. Estate a/Becker v. Przybyla 7 N. Y.3d 228 818 88 N. Y.2d 154 643 N. S.2d 939 940 N. Y.S. 2d 152 (2d Dept. 2012). In substance plaintiffs allege that between 1954 to 2000 (a period incorporating several "tacked" time periods), they adversely occupied the "North-Northeast" portion of Lot 64 by, continuously and openly using and maintaining their pre-existing dock and float. inter alia See Defendants ' Affirmation in Support Exhibit B ~~ 11- 18. A second cause of action asserts entitlement to damages predicated on defendants ' conduct in relocating the dock apparatus which conduct allegedly: (1) diminished the value of plaintiffs ' abutting residential propert and [* 4] See (2) prevented plaintiffs from meaningfully using their repositioned dock and float. Defendants ' Affrmation in Support Exhibit B ~ 19- 22. Defendants have answered , denied the material allegations of the Verified Complaint and interposed two Counterclaims. The first Counterclaim avers that plaintiffs damaged defendants ' dock and trespassed on defendants ' propert- by anchoring unauthorized pilings into Lot 64 and by maintaining " an attached boathouse " without a permit. The second Counterclaim asserts that plaintiffs improperly interfered with defendants ' riparian rights by blocking their See access to the adjacent waterway. Defendants ' Affirmation in Support Exhibit C ~~ 11 28- 31. Significantly, in his deposition , plaintiff Robert Klein testified inter alia that when he purchased his home in 1994 from the immediately prior owners (the Goulds), he did not know that Lot 64 existed; that , to him , the subject area was "just water; " and that he did not think anyone could " own the water. See Defendants ' Affirmation in Support Exhibit J pp' , 12 , 55- 56. He fuer stated that the Goulds informed him that, upon purchasing the house , he would be acquiring the existing dock , the ramp, the pilngs and " access " to the canal. See Defendants Affirmation in Support Exhibit J pp. 25- 27. Notably, the Goulds never told plaintiffs that they (the Goulds) owned Lot 64 , nor specifically stated they were conveying any par of it to plaintiffs. See Defendants ' Affrmation in Support Exhibit J pp. 24 , 55- 56. According to plaintiff Robert Klein , although he used the water area in question primarily for boating puroses (see Defendants ' Affirmation in Support Exhibit J pp. 50- 51), he did not make significant improvements to his existing dock area after he moved in 1994 and did not enclose or otherwse restrict access to the area for his own or exclusive use. See Defendants Affirmation in Support Exhibit J pp. 31 , 51- 52. Moreover, plaintiff Robert Klein stated that he [* 5] did not know how, or if, the Goulds used the dock and , to his knowledge , they did not even have a boat in 1994. See Defendants ' Affirmation in Support Exhibit J pp. 28- , 34 55. Plaintiff Robert Klein had no specific discussions with his own predecessors in title , nor with defendants ' prior title owners , concerning the specific arangements , if any, that had historically See existed between the various prior owners relating to the use of Lot 64. Defendants Affirmation in Support Exhibit J pp. 30 , 55. In his Affidavit, however , plaintiff Robert Klein contends that , before the defendants arived in 1997 , the various prior owners of both properties See always shared" the use of the subject water location. Plaintiffs ' Affidavit in Support ~ 4. The paries now move (Seq. No. 03) and cross-move (Seq. No. 04) for summar judgment on their respective claims. Specifically, plaintiffs move for sumar judgment on their first , adverse possession , cause of action, while defendants cross-move for inter alia judgment dismissing plaintiffs ' Verified Complaint and for a judgment on their trespass and riparian rights Counterclaims. Plaintiffs ' motion (Seq. No. 03) is denied. Defendants ' cross-motion (Seq. No. 04) should be granted to the extent indicated below. Preliminarily, the record establishes that defendants ' cross-motion (Seq. No. 04) was made after the sixty- day summar judgment fiing period expired , as prescribed by this Court' December 13 , 2011 Certification Order. However , the cross-motion primarily arises out of the same issues raised by plaintiffs ' timely motion. LLC, See Kun Sik Kim 94 AD.3d 708 941 N. Y.S. 2d 269 (2d Dept. 2012); v. State Street Hospitality, McCallster v. 200 Park, L.P. , 92 AD. 3d 927 , 939 N. Y.S. 2d 538 (2d Dept. 2012). In any event, it is settled that a " cour , in the course of deciding the timely motion... (may) search the record and award summar judgment to a nonmoving part. See CPLR ~ 3212 (b); Homeland Ins. Co. of New York v. National Grange [* 6] 84 AD. 3d 737 922 N. Y.S.2d 522 (2d Dept. 2011). Additionally, while plaintiffs Mut. Ins. Co., (see did not submit a copy of the pleadings with their papers CPLR ~ 3212(b)), those documents were thereafter attached by defendants with their cross-motion , thereby sufficiently completing the record for the purposes of facilitating adequate review by the Cour. See Daramboukas v. Samlidis 84 AD.3d 719, 922 N. Y.S.2d 207 (2d Dept. 2011); v. 1468; 904 N. Y.S. 2d 234 (3d Dept. 2010); Welch Sanacore Sanacore 74 A. D. 3d Hauck 18 AD. 3d 1096 , 795 N. v. 2d 789 (3d Dept. 2005). To succeed on an adverse possession claim " not based upon a written instrent" a part " must show that the parcel was either ' usually cultivated or improved or protected by a substantial inclosure. Caradonna 65 AD. 3d 657 885 N. v. RPAPL ~ 522(1) and (2). See Becker 72 AD. 3d 643 897 N. 2d 308 (2d Dept. Murtagh , supra; Gourdine S.2d 647 (2d Dept. 2010). 2009) quoting Ossining, v. BTJ Realty v. v. See also Hogan Vilage of Kelly, AD. 3d 590 927 N. Y.S. 2d 157 (2d Dept. 2011). Additionally, any alleged " occupation of the propert must (i. e. a reasonable basis for the (also) be (1) hostile and under a claim of right belief that the subject propert belongs to a paricular par), (2) actual , (3) open and notorious (4) exclusive , and (5) continuous for the statutory period (at least ten years). Murtagh , supra; Wallng v. Przybyla , supra. Estate of Becker If even a single element is lacking, " the alleged possession wil not effect a change in legal title. 33 A. D.3d 704 , 823 N. Y.S.2d Matter of Perry, 413 (2d Dept. 2006). Since adverse possession is a disfavored means of acquiring title to land See Estate of Becker all elements of the claim must be proved by clear and convincing evidence. v. Murtagh, supra; Ram v. Hudmor Corp. 37 AD. 3d AD. 2d 122 Dann 84 AD. 3d 1204 924 N. 172 , 829 N. Y.S.2d 471 (1 719 N. Y.S. 2d 44 (1st Dept. 2001). S.2d 482 (2d Dept. 2011); st Dept. 2007); Joseph v. Keena Whitcombe 279 [* 7] With these principles in mind , and whether the claims made are viewed as based upon a written instruent" or not , the Court agrees that plaintiffs have failed to establish that they acquired title to Lot 64 , or any portion thereof, by adverse possession. v. ofOssining, supra; Reis Vilage v. See Gourdine Caron 37 AD.3d 803 830 N. Y.S.2d 589 (2d Dept. 2007). More specifically, the evidence submitted , including relevant deposition testimony, belies the assertion that the propert E.g. , Keena claim of right." BlockAssn. v. v. was hostilely and continuously held under the requisite Hudmor Corp. , supra All the Way E. Fourth St. at 173- 174; Ryan-NENA Community Health Ctr. 30 AD. 3d 182 , 817 N. Y.S. 2d 14 (pt Dept. 2006). Rather , the evidence demonstrates that , prior to 1999 , plaintiffs were not even aware that the underwater lot existed as a parcel which could be adversely possessed. Plaintiff Robert Klein testified in this respect that he believed no one could " own the water" - a statement at odds with plaintiffs ' curent assertion that , instead , they actually held the propert in a possessory and hostile fashion under a claim of right. Whitcombe , supra v. Cf Joseph at 126- 127. If anything, the record suggests that plaintiffs used Lot 64 not in a maner tyical of an adverse possessor but rather , as riparan land owners exercising a right of access to the adjacent water. The foregoing conclusion buttressed in par by the testimony of plaintiff Robert Klein; namely, plaintiff Robert Klein s testimony that the Goulds never told the him that they were conveying any sort of possessory right or title to Lot 64 , but rather, that plaintiffs would be receiving the existing docking apparatus and " access " to the water. Exhibit J pp. 25- 27; v. Town of Oyster Bay See Commander Oil Corp. 96 N. Y.2d 2d 108 (2001) (foundational riparian right is one of added). See also Ram v. Dann , supra at 1206; Defendants ' Affirmation in Support access Reis v. Caron , supra 566 , 734 to the water )(emphasis at 804. Plaintiffs have also failed to competently describe the allegedly adverse or hostile [* 8] maner in which their predecessors occupied the subject location or document precisely what relationships , if any, existed with respect to the use of the dock prior to 1994. supra v. Seisser at 804; Eglin 7 A. D.3d Brandv. Prince 35 N. Y.2d 634 , 364 N. 505 , v. See Reis 776 N. Y.S.2d 314 (2d Dept. 2004). Coron See generally S.2d 826 (1974). Plaintiffs ' inconclusive submission inter alia a 1977 dock configuation at the subject location , does not of photographs depicting, establish that a portion of the underwater lot must therefore have been adversely or occupied by prior owners since that date. Nor does it reveal what those predecessors intended to convey, if See Brand anything, with respect to the subject location. v. supra; Reis Caron, supra. Significantly, " mere v. Prince , supra Keena v. Hudmor Corp. , supra v. Harbor Estates Ltd. Partnership Joseph v. Whitcombe , supra May, Ram v. Dann occupancy for an extended period of years even when coupled with " open conduct consistent with ownership " initial claim of right." at 637; at 174; - wil not suffice " absent an at 706; Matter of Perry; supra 294 A.D.2d 399 , 742 N. Y.S. 2d 347 (2d Dept. 2002); at 124. Relatedly, plaintiffs ' own submissions further undercut the claim of hostile and exclusive occupancy, since , according to plaintiff Robert Klein , the prior owners of both properties had " always shared" the use of the water location in question. See Affidavit in Support ~~ 4- 5. A claim of adverse possession wil use is permissive or based on an neighborly accommodation. generally Plaintiffs fail where the disputed See generally Estate of Becker Murtagh, supra. Finally, it bears noting that , in making their unpleaded written instruent " adverse possession theory (RPAPL ~ 511- 512), plaintiffs rely in par on inapposite case law governing the distinct concept of riparian rights. Town of Hempstead v. E.g. Town of Oyster Bay Oceanside Yacht Harbor, Inc. 38 A. v. Commander Oil Corp. , supra; 2d 263 , 328 N. Y.S. 2d 894 (2d , ''' [* 9] 32 N. Y.2d 859, 346 N. Y.S.2d 529 (1973); aff' Dept. 1972), 234 N. Y. 15 (1922); Bravo Tifany v. Town of Oyster Bay, Terstiege 196 AD. 2d 473 601 N. Y.S. 2d 129 (2d Dept. 1993); v. Plaintiffs ' Memorandum of Law pp. 11- 12; Plaintiffs ' Reply Affrmation ~~ 9- 10. Riparian rights , however , are not title-conferring in nature , but instead , merely create a right of access to adjacent , navigable waters. Mascolo v. v. See Town of Oyster Bay Romaz Props. , Ltd 28 A. D.3d 617 Commander Oil Corp. , supra at 571; 813 N. Y.S.2d 765 (2d Dept. 2006). Accordingly, plaintiffs ' first cause of action grounded upon an adverse possession theory of recovery should be dismissed. However , those branches of defendants ' cross-motion (Seq. No. 04) which are for judgment on their first (trespass) and second (riparian rights) Counterclaims should be denied. The record supports the inference that plaintiffs , whose propert (see Waukena Canal abuts the water flowing in Defendants ' Affirmation in Support Exhibit C ~ 24), would possess a right of riparian access over defendants ' submerged land to the adjacent , navigable portion of the canal. v. See Town of Oyster Bay supra; Town of Hempstead Inc. v. v. v. Town of Oyster Bay, Oceanside Yacht Harbor, Inc. , supra. Cf Gowanus Indus. Park Supp. Hess Corp. Commander Oil Corp. , supra; Tifany , 2012 WL 273657 (E. Y. 2012). Although not absolute , riparian rights , which exist " regardless ofthe ownership status of the underwater land" (see Ford 2012), " include v. Rifenburg, 94 AD3d 1285 , 942 N. 2d 285 (3d Dept. the right of reasonable , safe and convenient access to navigable water , including the right to make this access a practical reality by building a pier , or wharng out from his frontage. Town of Oyster Bay supra; Mascolo v. 1224(A), 901 N. v. Romaz Props. , Commander Oil Corp. , supra; Tifany v. Town of Oyster Bay, Ltd , supra. See also Errico v. Weinstein 25 Misc.3d. 2d 906 (Supreme Cour , Nassau County 2009). Moreover (e)ach riparian ). [* 10] or littoral proprietor must allow sufficient room in the placement of strctues within his own boundaries so that they wil not be blocked by the 11 Misc.3d. 1061(A), 816 N. Y.S.2d Meyerowitz, 2006)( citations omitted). It has also construction of the neighbor. ", Muraca 697 (Supreme Cour , Nassau County been held that a trespass claim will not lie where " incursion onto a landowner " parcel is " an authorized and reasonable exercise " of a person riparian rights. See Gowanus Indus. Park, Inc. v. Hess Corp. , supra at 6. Upon the conflcting allegations made here , the Cour canot sumarily detennine whether the paries ' conduct relative to the dock area was reasonable. Notably, " what constitutes a reasonable , safe and convenient use of the upland owner riparian rights has been gradually defined on a case-to-case basis v. (see Town of Hempstead Oceanside, Yacht Harbor, supra 266) and generally, the "reasonableness -ofthe exercise of riparian rights is a question of fact." See Gowanus Indus. Park, Inc. (SD. Y. 2003); Errico v. v. Amerada Hess Corp. Weinstein Misc. 3d. Supp.2d , 2003 WL 22076651 , (NOR) Index No. 18048- , Slip Opinion (June 20 , 2006). Although plaintiffs ' application for an opposing dock permit was denied , that denial is not determinative of the paries ' respective riparian rights. See Errico v. Weinstein , supra at 5- the issuance ofthe individual permits constitutes a.... legally dissimilar transaction from the collective allocation of riparian rights " which is "to be made solely by the Cour. " See also Muraca v. Meyerowitz , supra at 351. Lastly, although plaintiffs ' Verified Complaint does not expressly raise the issue of riparan rights , it does allege that defendants ' conduct has interfered with the use of their dock. See Defendants ' Affrmation in Support Exhibit B ~~ 8- 9. Furer, defendants themselves have affrmatively raised the issue of riparian rights , including whether inter alia plaintiffs ' exercise 10- [* 11] of their own riparan rights constitutes a trespass under the circumstances presented. Defendants ' Affrmation in Support Exhibit Corp. , supra C ~ 11. See See also Gowanus Indus. Park, Inc. v. Hess at 6. The Cour has considered the paries ' remaining contentions and concludes that they are lacking in merit. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that plaintiffs ' motion (Seq. No. 03), pursuant to CPLR ~ 3212 , for an order granting them sumar judgment on their first adverse possession cause of action is hereby DENIED. And it is fuer ORDERED that defendants ' cross-motion (Seq. No. 04), pursuant to CPLR ~ 3212 , for an order granting them summar judgment is hereby GRANTED to the extent that the plaintiffs ' first, adverse possession cause of action is dismissed , and the cross-motion (Seq. No. 04) is otherwise hereby DENIED. All paries shall appear for Trial in the Nassau County Supreme Cour , Differentiated Case Management Par (DCM) at 100 Supreme Cour Drive , Mineola , New York , on June 14 2012 , at 9:30 a. This constitutes the Decision and Order of this Cour. DENIS L. SHER, A. ENTERED Dated: Mineola, New York May 14 2012 MAY 16 2012 11- NAHA COUNTY COUNtY CL!RK' OFF'S!

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.