In a significant ruling on September 30, 2026, the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York reversed a lower court's decision in the case of Pligavko v. Chimples. The court's ruling allows the plaintiff, Michael Pligavko, to move forward with his unopposed motion for summary judgment against the defendants, John Chimples and others. This case revolves around a dispute over property boundaries and alleged trespass, impacting property rights in Suffolk County.
The case began when Pligavko acquired a piece of real estate in Suffolk County on June 18, 2021. Shortly after, he filed a lawsuit against his neighbors, the Chimples, on April 1, 2022. Pligavko claimed that the improvements made by the Chimples encroached on his property. The lawsuit sought damages for trespass as well as injunctive and declaratory relief.
As the case progressed, the defendants, Chimples and others, initially agreed to extend their time to respond to the complaint. They also waived defenses related to service of process and personal jurisdiction. However, they did not formally respond to Pligavko's amended complaint, which merely corrected paragraph numbering without altering any claims. On January 23, 2024, the lower court denied Pligavko's motion for summary judgment, citing a lack of personal jurisdiction over the defendants.
The Appellate Division, comprised of Judges Betsy Barros, Cheryl E. Chambers, Janice A. Taylor, and Elena Goldberg Velazquez, found that the lower court erred in its decision. The court ruled that the defendants had waived their right to claim a lack of personal jurisdiction by participating in the lawsuit without raising that defense. The opinion stated, "Lack of personal jurisdiction is an affirmative defense that can be waived by, among other things, appearing in an action..." The judges emphasized that the defendants had already engaged in the case by submitting an answer to the original complaint.
The ruling also clarified that the lower court should have exercised its discretion to address Pligavko's motion for summary judgment without requiring the defendants to respond to the amended complaint. The court pointed out that the amended complaint did not introduce new claims but only corrected a technical issue. The judges stated, "The Supreme Court has the discretion to dispense with the requirement that the defendants answer [an] amended complaint prior to addressing the plaintiff's summary judgment motion."
This decision has significant implications for property disputes in New York. It reinforces the principle that defendants cannot delay proceedings by raising jurisdictional defenses after participating in the case. The ruling allows Pligavko's case to proceed on its merits, which could lead to a resolution of the property boundary issues at the heart of the dispute.
The outcome of this case may influence how similar property disputes are handled in the future. It underscores the importance of timely responses in legal proceedings and the potential consequences of failing to assert defenses early in the process. Property owners facing similar situations may find reassurance in the court's ruling, knowing that participation in a lawsuit can waive certain defenses.
Looking ahead, the case will return to the Supreme Court in Suffolk County for a determination on the merits of Pligavko's unopposed motion for summary judgment. The court's decision on the merits will ultimately decide whether Pligavko is entitled to the relief he seeks regarding the alleged encroachment by the Chimples.
As of now, there is no indication that the defendants plan to appeal the Appellate Division's decision. However, the possibility of further legal action remains open, depending on the outcomes of the upcoming hearings.