Places in Saratoga, LLC v. Frank J. Izzo et al.
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Neighboring property dispute concerning stormwater runoff and construction-related access obligations arising from a preconstruction stipulation, including claims for nuisance, trespass, negligence, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
Supreme Court (Saratoga County) denied plaintiff’s successive motion for partial summary judgment on nuisance and trespass, denied summary judgment on negligence and on dismissing defendants’ prescriptive easement defense, and, after searching the record under CPLR 3212(b) [permits a court to search the record and grant summary judgment to a nonmoving party on a cause of action or issue that is the subject of the motion], granted defendants summary judgment dismissing the implied covenant and promissory estoppel claims.
Only the grant of summary judgment to defendants dismissing the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing claim was reversed; the order was otherwise affirmed. Plaintiff did not challenge dismissal of promissory estoppel.
Triable issues of fact exist as to whether defendants negotiated in good faith under the parties’ RPAPL 881 stipulation, including whether defendants conditioned agreement to a rainwater catchment system on extracontractual roof-snow-load work; questions of state of mind and credibility preclude summary judgment.
Background
The parties own adjoining parcels in Saratoga Springs. Defendants’ two‑story building abuts the boundary where plaintiff demolished a longstanding barn to construct a new three‑story building. Plaintiff commenced a special proceeding under RPAPL 881 [permits a property owner to obtain a temporary license to enter adjoining property to make necessary improvements or repairs] to access neighboring lots for excavation and to relocate drainage and a sewer line servicing defendants. The parties entered a 2018 stipulation: paragraph 6 required plaintiff’s structural engineer to inspect defendants’ north wall and recommend protective measures; paragraph 7 required the parties to discuss the nature, scope, and allocation of responsibilities for those measures and to necessarily include design and construction, at plaintiff’s expense, of a rainwater catchment system to receive runoff from defendants’ roof; paragraph 8 provided that after agreement and completion of responsibilities, defendants would terminate sewer/utility easements benefiting their parcel. The engineer’s report recommended wall repairs, warned that removing a gutter on defendants’ north roof would require an alternate roof‑water solution, and flagged increased snow drift loads due to the taller new building. The parties discussed competing rainwater system designs but never installed plaintiff’s proposal. Defendants nonetheless executed a sewer easement termination. A gutter on defendants’ north roof was removed (the parties dispute who removed it). In 2019 defendants moved to settle the stipulation and compel plaintiff to fund roof improvements to address snow loads; that motion was denied in January 2020. Plaintiff then sued for water infiltration allegedly caused by runoff from defendants’ roof, asserting breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, promissory estoppel, nuisance, trespass, and negligence, and sought damages and an injunction. Defendants asserted, among other defenses, a prescriptive easement to discharge water onto plaintiff’s property.
Lower Court Decision
By August 22, 2024 order (Justice Kupferman), Supreme Court denied plaintiff’s successive motion for partial summary judgment on nuisance and trespass for lack of newly discovered evidence; denied plaintiff summary judgment on negligence due to factual disputes over causation (including whether water infiltration came from defendants’ roof or plaintiff’s own acts); denied dismissal of defendants’ prescriptive easement defense due to inadequate briefing and factual issues; and, after searching the record under CPLR 3212(b), granted defendants summary judgment dismissing the implied covenant and promissory estoppel claims.
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division modified by reinstating the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing claim. It held that paragraph 7 obligated the parties to engage in discussions including a rainwater catchment system but did not mandate a particular design or an agreement. The record shows defendants proposed an alternative system and continued discussions, but also contains evidence suggesting defendants tied assent to plaintiff’s funding of roof snow‑load work not addressed in the stipulation. Because good‑faith negotiation involves state of mind and credibility, triable issues precluded granting summary judgment to defendants. The court otherwise affirmed: it upheld denial of plaintiff’s successive summary judgment motion; found factual disputes on negligence causation; and left the prescriptive easement defense for trial. Plaintiff abandoned any challenge to dismissal of promissory estoppel.
Legal Significance
Reaffirms limits on a court’s CPLR 3212(b) search—summary judgment for a nonmovant is improper where material factual disputes persist—and underscores that obligations to negotiate future terms under a contract or stipulation trigger the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing but do not guarantee agreement; a good‑faith impasse can occur, yet conditioning agreement on extracontractual demands may raise triable issues. Also clarifies that successive summary judgment motions require newly discovered evidence, not merely additional proof developed through ordinary discovery, and that causation disputes supported by expert affidavits preclude negligence summary judgment. RPAPL 881 stipulations can frame parties’ preconstruction obligations, but courts will look to the stipulation’s text to determine the scope of required measures.
Where a stipulation requires parties to discuss protective measures (including a rainwater catchment system), proposing alternatives can be consistent with good faith, but insisting on obligations outside the stipulation creates triable issues that bar summary judgment; courts will not entertain successive summary judgment motions absent truly new evidence.