ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the defendant's motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) and (7) to dismiss the plaintiff's first and second causes of action, inter alia, for failure to state a cause of action (see CPLR 3211[a][7]). Accepting the facts as alleged in the complaint as true and affording the plaintiff the benefit of every favorable inference (see Leon v. Martinez, 84 N.Y.2d 83, 87; Farmer v. Green Bus Lines, 254 A.D.2d 389, 390), the first cause of action, which seeks to recover for property damage the plaintiff allegedly suffered when certain real property owned by him was flooded, sufficiently alleges that the Town was negligent in failing to properly maintain and repair a certain drainage system near the property (see, Colgan v. Town of Hillsdale, 68 N.Y.2d 788, 789; Pet Products v. City of Yonkers, 290 A.D.2d 546; Zeltmann v. Town of Islip, 265 A.D.2d 407, 408; cf. Biernacki v. Village of Ravena, 245 A.D.2d 656, 657).
The second cause of action, which seeks a permanent injunction, sufficiently alleges a cause of action based on nuisance and trespass premised on the plaintiff's claims that the Town diverted storm and surface water onto his property, causing flooding (see Zimmerman v. Carnack, 292 A.D.2d 601).
The Town's remaining contentions are without merit.
O'BRIEN, J.P., FRIEDMANN, H. MILLER and CRANE, JJ., concur.