Dubi Zigelstein, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Shuping Tong, Defendant-Respondent. (2026)

Per Curiam.

Order (L. Austin D'Souza, J.), dated October 24, 2025, affirmed, without costs.

Civil Court properly dismissed the action at the close of plaintiff's case. Even affording plaintiff every favorable inference that reasonably could be drawn from the evidence adduced at trial (see Szczerbiak v Pilat, 90 NY2d 553, 556 [1997]), we agree that he failed to establish a prima facie case against defendant for trespass. As the trial court noted, plaintiff failed to establish through admissible evidence that defendant's fence encroached on his property "since there was no objective proof of the boundaries of the property entered into evidence" and plaintiff's vague testimony regarding other alleged instances of "trespass" was legally insufficient. Plaintiff's harassment claim was properly dismissed since New York does not recognize a civil cause of action for harassment (see Santoro v Town of Smithtown, 40 AD3d 736, 738 [2007]; Broadway Cent. Prop. Inc. v 682 Tenant Corp., 298 AD2d 253, 254 [2002]).

We have examined plaintiff's remaining contentions and find them to be improperly raised for the first time on appeal and/or without merit.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concur I concur I concur

Decision Date: October 15, 2026