Cotto v. Federal National Mortgage Association
- Vyskocil
- 1:20-cv-06487
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Cotto v. Federal National Mortgage Association, Judge Vyskocil granted dismissal and closed the case with prejudice.
Eric S. Cotto’s trespass complaint against Federal National Mortgage Association was dismissed with prejudice, and the case was closed.
What happened
In Cotto v. Federal National Mortgage Association, Eric S. Cotto alleged that water from the defendant’s neighboring property entered his residence and caused damage. He sued for trespass and sought damages. The court previously allowed him to amend his complaint, but he did not do so, and he did not oppose the defendant’s second motion to dismiss.
The court found that the complaint did not plausibly allege trespass under New York law because it did not say that the defendant intentionally or affirmatively caused the water to enter. The complaint also did not state when the water entered, how long the problem lasted, or what damage resulted.
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss and dismissed Cotto’s complaint with prejudice. The clerk was directed to close the case.
The detailed version
- Cotto v. Federal National Mortgage Association · No. 1:20-cv-06487
- Vyskocil
- Sept. 12, 2022
Background
Eric S. Cotto sued Federal National Mortgage Association in New York state court. He alleged that water from the defendant’s neighboring property entered his residence at 239 Buttrick Avenue in the Bronx and caused unspecified damage. His complaint asserted a trespass claim and requested $250,000 in compensatory damages and $150,000 in punitive damages.
The defendant removed the case to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction and moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. The court previously denied the first motion as moot and gave Cotto permission to file an amended complaint. Cotto did not amend. The defendant filed a second motion to dismiss, which Cotto did not oppose.
Court’s Analysis
Applying New York law, the court explained that trespass requires an intentional entry onto another person’s property without permission or justification, including an affirmative act that causes an intentional intrusion. Cotto alleged that water from the defendant’s property entered his basement, but he did not allege that the defendant affirmatively or intentionally caused that entry.
The court also found that the complaint lacked facts about when the water entered, how long the intrusion continued, and what damage it caused. The court concluded that these allegations were too vague and general to make the trespass claim plausible.
Disposition
The court held that dismissal with prejudice was appropriate because Cotto had already been given an opportunity to correct the complaint, had been warned about its deficiencies, and did not amend it. The court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss, dismissed the complaint with prejudice, terminated the motion docket entry, and closed the case. Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil signed the order.
Classification Note
This is a procedural order because the court ruled on a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6), rather than deciding the underlying trespass dispute after a merits determination.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.