When a Town Cuts Down Your Trees: New York's Highest Court Limits Treble Damages Against Municipalities
Summary of Matter of Rosbaugh v. Town of Lodi: Treble Damages Under RPAPL 861 Are Punitive
In March 2025, the New York Court of Appeals, the state's highest court, ruled that the treble (triple) damages available for illegally cutting or destroying someone's trees are punitive in nature. Because New York law shields the state and its municipalities from punitive damages, the decision means a town cannot be forced to pay treble damages under the statute, even when its contractor destroys dozens of trees on private property. Here is what happened and why it matters for property owners and tree professionals.
Case Background: A Town's Roadside Tree Removal Sparks a Lawsuit
An unpaved road ran along one side of the plaintiffs' property. In 2010, the Town of Lodi determined that low-hanging branches and dead or dying trees on the plaintiffs' side of the road posed a hazard to travelers and had to be cut or removed. The property owners disagreed.
The Town proceeded anyway. Concluding that the trees fell within the road's right of way, a tree service company hired by the Town cut down or trimmed fifty-five trees on the plaintiffs' land. The property owners sued both the Town and the tree service.
The Property Owners' Claim: Treble Damages Under RPAPL 861
The owners sought treble damages under New York's Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL) Section 861, the statute governing the unauthorized cutting or destruction of trees and timber. The parties agreed to resolve the dispute through binding arbitration.
An arborist valued each tree individually, ranging from under $100 to more than $5,000.
Those values produced a total "stumpage value" (the fair market value of a tree as it stands before it is cut) of $48,349.
The arbitrator trebled that figure and awarded $145,047 against the Town, along with remedial costs and the value of the cut wood.
The arbitrator found no evidence of any reduction in the property's value and no basis for mental anguish damages.
The Core Legal Question: Are Treble Tree-Cutting Damages Punitive?
A note on terminology, because it affects how the case reads: in New York, the trial-level court is called the "Supreme Court," not the highest court. Here, the Supreme Court in Seneca County confirmed the arbitrator's award, and a divided Appellate Division affirmed. The Town then appealed to the Court of Appeals, which is New York's highest court.
The appeal came down to a single question: are treble damages under RPAPL 861 punitive? The answer mattered because well-settled New York law bars punitive damages against the state and its political subdivisions. If the treble damages were punitive, they could not be imposed on the Town.
The statute itself framed the debate. Treble damages are the default measure for illegal cutting. But RPAPL 861(2) provides a good-faith exception: if a defendant proves by clear and convincing evidence that it had reason to believe it owned the land, held an easement or right of way, or otherwise had a legal right to harvest, it pays only the single stumpage value (or $250 per tree), not triple.
What New York's Highest Court Held
The Court of Appeals reversed, holding unanimously that treble damages under RPAPL 861 are punitive and therefore cannot be imposed on the Town.
The good-faith exception was the key signal. A statute that reduces damages based on the defendant's state of mind is punishing culpable conduct, not simply compensating a loss.
The State and its political subdivisions are not subject to punitive damages, because the twin purposes of such damages, punishment and deterrence, are not served by making taxpayers pay.
The Court rejected the lower court's theory that trebling merely captures a tree's hard-to-measure "intrinsic value," such as its environmental, historical, and aesthetic qualities.
The statute's history reinforced the result. Predecessor statutes going back more than two centuries paired treble damages with a good-faith reduction, and the 2003 legislative record described the trebling as a deterrent against the knowing theft of timber.
The result: the treble portion of the award against the Town could not stand, and the petition to vacate the award was granted in part.
Legal Implications for Property Owners and Tree Professionals
This case draws a clear line around one of the most powerful remedies in tree law.
Treble damages remain a strong remedy against private parties who cut or destroy your trees without permission, but they are not available against a town, city, or other government entity.
Good faith changes the math. A defendant who genuinely believed it had the right to cut may owe only single damages rather than triple.
Stumpage value is the baseline measure, and a careful, tree-by-tree appraisal by a qualified arborist can move the total substantially.
When a municipality or its contractor is the one doing the cutting, the recovery available to you is different, and worth understanding before you count on a treble award.
Protecting Yourself in a Tree-Cutting Dispute
Property owners and tree professionals can take practical steps to stay on solid ground:
Confirm boundaries and rights of way before anyone cuts. Many of these disputes begin with an honest disagreement over where a property line or easement actually sits.
Put instructions to any tree service in writing, and keep the valuation records. Documentation matters both for proving damages and for supporting a good-faith position.
If a government entity or its contractor damages your trees, understand early that treble damages may be off the table, even though single stumpage value and other remedies are not.
Have a tree or boundary dispute? Contact us today at (213) 293-9401 or derek@dsimpsonlegal.com to schedule a consultation and understand your rights.
Case citation: Matter of Arbitration between Rosbaugh and Town of Lodi, 43 N.Y.3d 567 (2025).