SADORE LANE GARDENS INC v. CITY OF YONKERS (2026)

DECISION & ORDER

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for injury to property, the defendant appeals, and the plaintiff cross-appeals, from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Robert S. Ondrovic, J.), dated January 15, 2025.  The order, insofar as appealed from, denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.  The order, insofar as cross-appealed from, denied the plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.

ORDERED that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, and the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted;  and it is further,

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as cross-appealed from;  and it is further,

ORDERED that one bill of costs is awarded to the defendant.

The plaintiff, a five-building cooperative apartment complex adjacent to Central Park Avenue in Yonkers, commenced this action against the defendant, City of Yonkers, inter alia, to recover damages the plaintiff sustained when its underground garages flooded, allegedly due to the defendant's negligent management of the storm drain system.  Central Park Avenue is an arterial highway constructed by the State.  Pursuant to a 1972 agreement between the defendant and the State, the defendant assumed responsibility “for the maintenance and repair of” Central Park Avenue.

The defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and the plaintiff cross-moved for summary judgment on the issue of liability.  In an order dated January 15, 2025, the Supreme Court denied both motions.  The defendant appeals, and the plaintiff cross-appeals.

A municipality is obligated to exercise ordinary care in maintaining its streets and drainage system (see Town of Yorktown v. Vanguard Tours, 83 AD2d 866, 866).  However, a municipality is immune from liability arising out of claims that it negligently designed its sewerage system (see Greene v. City of New York, 228 AD3d 841, 841).  As such, evidence of flooding caused by a sewer system is insufficient to maintain an action for negligence against a municipality (see Hongach v. City of New York, 8 AD3d 622, 622).  Rather, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the municipality either affirmatively breached a duty owed or was actively negligent and the negligence caused the flooding (see Greene v. City of New York, 228 AD3d at 842).

Here, the defendant established, prima facie, that the flooding on the plaintiff's property was not caused by the defendant's breach of a duty owed to the plaintiff or by the defendant's active negligence (see Moore v. City of Yonkers, 54 AD3d 397, 398;  Hongach v. City of New York, 8 AD3d at 622).  The defendant's inspections of the storm sewer in September 2021 and June 2022 demonstrated that there was no significant obstruction of the storm sewer.  Moreover, to the extent that the plaintiff alleged that the defendant failed to install an adequate drainage system, any such failure is not actionable (see Mills v. City of Brooklyn, 32 N.Y. 489, 498–499;  Town of Yorktown v. Vanguard Tours, 83 AD2d at 866).  Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, the plaintiff was not an intended third-party beneficiary under the defendant's maintenance agreement with the State (see Shepherd v Gallo Rest. of Patchogue, LLC, 244 AD3d 1155, 1158).  Nor can the defendant be held liable for exercising its discretionary authority to approve developments on adjacent parcels (see Kossoff v. Rathgeb–Walsh, 3 NY2d 583, 589–590;  Cappiello v. City of Glen Cove, 232 AD3d 844, 846).

In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact.  The affirmation of the plaintiff's expert was speculative and conclusory and, thus, failed to establish a causal connection between the defendant's alleged negligence and the flooding on the plaintiff's property (see Greene v. City of New York, 228 AD3d at 842;  Hongach v. City of New York, 8 AD3d at 622–623).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

The plaintiff's remaining contentions are without merit.

DUFFY, J.P., CHRISTOPHER, LANDICINO and QUIRK, JJ., concur.