New York State
Grand Street construction dispute: March 2026 appeal
The March 18, 2026 appeal upheld trespass liability against the private defendants while dismissing private-nuisance and access-license claims. This historical case file explains that partial ruling and the construction dispute described in the opinion.
Historical ruling ·
This case file explains that dated ruling and its limits.
- Case
- 2026 NY Slip Op 01547 (appellate ruling)
- Court
- Appellate Division, Second Department; originating case in Westchester County Supreme Court
- Record checked
Scutari et al. v. Drapala et al.
The verified ruling
The verified ruling
The court modified the January 2021 order by dismissing the first and seventh causes against the private defendants and otherwise affirmed to the extent appealed. It awarded no damages amount and ordered no removal of the home. Coverage here ends with the March 18, 2026 decision.
Further reporting will follow later court orders. This file explains the March 18, 2026 appellate decision and does not present it as a later trial result or settlement.
Why is this a Croton case?
The dispute involved neighboring Grand Street properties, a modular replacement home and conditions in a Croton Planning Board approval. The opinion recounts allegations of construction damage and noncompliance; this file explains the court’s treatment of those claims.
Official March 18, 2026 appellate opinion, corrected through May 6
What did the neighbors establish on trespass?
The court upheld liability for entry onto their property without permission during construction. That determination addressed the right to exclude others. It did not set a damages amount or direct removal of the house.
Official March 18, 2026 appellate opinion, corrected through May 6
What did the private defendants win on appeal?
The court dismissed private nuisance because the motion evidence did not establish the required substantial and unreasonable interference. It also dismissed the claim seeking to require a future access license, explaining that completed work removed the need for further entry at that stage. Those dismissals did not undo trespass liability.
Official March 18, 2026 appellate opinion, corrected through May 6
Did the court resolve the construction-compliance dispute?
No. The opinion described Village Engineer testimony about the old footprint and contrary surveyor evidence about the submitted plan. It treated the conflict as a factual issue and declined to dismiss the declaratory claim on that motion. The ruling did not choose the correct dimensions or establish a later outcome.
Official March 18, 2026 appellate opinion, corrected through May 6
The timeline
From the recordHow we got here
- Local background
Planning approval recounted in later opinion
The appellate opinion describes a Planning Board resolution approving the modular home subject to safety conditions.
Why this matters: Supplies the historical approval context. This account does not independently determine compliance with the plan.
- Background
Modular home installed, according to opinion
The court’s historical account dates the installation to October 23, 2018, following construction beginning that summer.
Why this matters: Places the construction that gave rise to the neighboring-property dispute.
- Court ruling
Trial court rules on private defendants’ motions
As recounted in the appeal, the trial court denied the private defendants’ motion and granted the neighbors summary judgment on trespass liability.
Why this matters: The later appeal reviewed this motion ruling, rather than a final damages award.
- Court ruling
Appeal narrows claims and preserves trespass liability
The Second Department dismisses private nuisance and the access-license cause against the private defendants and otherwise affirms the order to the extent appealed.
Why this matters: Resolves parts of that motion dispute without awarding compensation or ordering removal of the home.