Follender v. MaximFollender v. Maxim
Peters, J. Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Coccoma, J.), entered July 5, 2006 in Delaware County, which awarded judgment to plaintiff against defendant Berton L. Maxim.
Plaintiff purchased real property in the Town of Roxbury, Delaware County, which included an assignment of the seller‘s legal right to assert a cause of action for a “wrongful and/or cutting down/taking of timber” from the purchased property. Defendant Berton L. Maxim and his wife, doing business as
After plaintiff successfully moved for a default judgment against them, Supreme Court ordered an inquest. When defendants again failed to appear, plaintiff offered extensive proof which included, among other things, the contract between the Riedmans and Tine, on behalf of Prime Hardwood. Plaintiff also proffered an affidavit from Valentine Riedman which explained that when Maxim came to log his property, he was given a survey map which depicted the Riedmans’ boundary line. Valentine Riedman maintained that he was unaware that Maxim would remove timber outside of those boundaries. Michael Greason, a professional forester, testified that 439 trees, of a commercial species, were cut or destroyed from plaintiff‘s property, 386 of which had a total value of $54,506.68. Supreme Court, upon determining that Maxim trespassed onto plaintiff‘s property and unlawfully removed trees therefrom, trebled the damages in plaintiff‘s amended complaint (see
It is well settled that this Court may correct any mistake, defect or irregularity in a judgment, provided that the correction does not affect a substantial right of a party (see
Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Spain and Carpinello, JJ., concur.
Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, without costs, by also awarding judgment against defendant Eileen Tine, and, as so modified, affirmed.