William Corsello, Respondents-Appellants v. Verizon New York, Inc., Formerly Known as New York Telephone…

Summary

The Court of Appeals held that building owners whose utility has continuously and permanently attached equipment to their property may pursue an inverse condemnation claim for just compensation even though the utility never formally exercised its eminent domain power, and that Real Property Law § 261 shields such a claim from any lapse-of-time limitations defense. It nonetheless dismissed the General Business Law § 349 claim as time-barred under CPLR 214(2)—rejecting equitable estoppel premised on mere nondisclosure—and dismissed the unjust enrichment claim as duplicative of the surviving tort and takings theories. Reviewing the denial of class certification only for abuse of discretion, the court found building-specific evidence defeated the predominance and typicality requirements of CPLR 901(a)(2)-(3). No separate opinions were filed.