A New York Supreme Court judge has ruled on a case involving the removal of trees from a property, clarifying what damages can be claimed in such disputes. The decision, made on January 16, 2026, affects property owners and those involved in land management, particularly regarding how tree removal damages are calculated.
The case, Englert v. Russell (Docket No. 2026 NY Slip Op 26012), arose after Lynne A. Englert discovered 34 trees had been cut down on her property by a neighboring landowner, Bolton Carmela, LLC (BCLLC), represented by Joseph Russell. Englert alleged that Russell had hired Alex Maxam, doing business as Maxam's Landscaping, to fell the trees without her consent. The dispute centers on the interpretation of New York's Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL) regarding damages for unauthorized tree removal.
Englert filed a lawsuit claiming trespass and negligence, seeking damages under RPAPL 861, which allows for recovery of treble stumpage value, a flat rate per tree, and compensation for permanent damage caused to the land. Englert argued that the removal of the trees led to drainage and erosion issues, and she presented an appraisal estimating the replacement value of the trees at $465,000.
The defendants, however, sought partial summary judgment to limit the damages Englert could claim. They argued that replacement costs were not recoverable under the statute and requested to exclude the testimony of Englert's expert witness regarding the tree replacement costs. Englert also sought to amend her complaint to include a claim for punitive damages.
In his ruling, Judge Martin D. Auffredou addressed the motions from both parties. He found that the defendants' argument against the recoverability of tree replacement costs was compelling. The court ruled, "the trunk formula method is not a permissible means of determining the cost to replace removed trees under the statute." The judge stated that the costs recoverable under RPAPL 861 are limited to specific categories and that the appraisal method used by Englert's expert was unreasonable.
The court explained that while RPAPL 861 allows for damages related to the loss of trees, such as treble stumpage value and a flat rate per tree, it does not explicitly include replacement costs as part of the damages for permanent and substantial damage to the land. The judge noted that the statute is clear in its language and intent, stating, "Nowhere in the statute is the cost to replace the unlawfully felled tree mentioned, and the plain language of the statute distinguishes the cutting, removal, injury or destruction of a tree from the damage that may be caused to the land thereby."
As a result, the court granted the defendants' motion for partial summary judgment, allowing Englert to pursue only limited damages related to the retail price of replacement trees and associated costs for delivery, planting, and soil amendment. The court denied Englert's request to amend her complaint for punitive damages as untimely.
This ruling has significant implications for property owners and those involved in land management. It clarifies the limits of recoverable damages in cases of unauthorized tree removal, emphasizing that replacement costs cannot be inflated by methods that account for aesthetic or environmental values. The court's interpretation of RPAPL 861 may set a precedent for similar cases in the future, as it underscores the importance of statutory language in determining damages.
The decision also highlights the challenges property owners face when seeking compensation for damages related to unauthorized tree removal. It suggests that claims for damages must be carefully constructed to align with statutory provisions, particularly in how damages are calculated and presented in court.
Looking ahead, the case is scheduled for a jury trial on February 2, 2026, where the remaining issues will be addressed. The court has denied a request for an adjournment, indicating that the trial will proceed as planned. The defendants' successful motion for partial summary judgment may influence how similar cases are approached in the future, potentially affecting the strategies of both plaintiffs and defendants in property damage claims.
Details were not available in the court filing regarding whether the decision can be appealed. However, given the nature of the ruling, it is possible that either party may seek further legal recourse following the trial.