Corsello v. Verizon New York, Inc.

Summary

The New York Court of Appeals held that property owners stated a timely inverse condemnation claim based on Verizon's alleged continuous and permanent attachment of telecommunications equipment to their building. The court held that Real Property Law § 261 prevented the inverse condemnation claim from becoming time-barred, but dismissed the General Business Law § 349 and unjust enrichment claims. The court also affirmed denial of class certification because individualized property-specific evidence defeated commonality and typicality.

Holdings

1. A complaint alleging that an entity possessing eminent-domain power continuously and permanently occupied private property by attaching equipment to it states a legally sufficient inverse condemnation claim, even if the entity did not expressly invoke its eminent-domain power.
2. Real Property Law § 261 applies to plaintiffs' inverse condemnation claim and prevents the claim from being barred solely by the lapse of time.
3. The General Business Law § 349 claim was time-barred, and Verizon was not equitably estopped from asserting the statute of limitations because plaintiffs alleged no separate, subsequent deceptive act that prevented timely suit.
4. Plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claim was legally insufficient because it duplicated or attempted to replace their conventional property and tort claims.
5. The denial of class certification was not an abuse of discretion because individualized, building-specific evidence predominated and plaintiffs' claims were not shown to be typical of the proposed class.

Questions Presented

1. Whether plaintiffs stated a legally sufficient inverse condemnation claim based on Verizon's alleged continuous and permanent occupation of their property under its eminent-domain authority.
2. Whether Real Property Law § 261 prevented the inverse condemnation claim from becoming time-barred through lapse of time.
3. Whether plaintiffs' General Business Law § 349 claim was barred by the statute of limitations and whether Verizon was equitably estopped from asserting that defense.
4. Whether plaintiffs stated an unjust enrichment claim or whether that claim duplicated their tort and property-taking theories.
5. Whether the denial of class certification constituted an abuse of discretion.

Disposition

other