Violation of a Local Law Did Not Demonstrate a Horse Pen Constituted a Private Per Se Nuisance
The Third Department determined summary judgment was properly denied for a nuisance cause of action. The fact that a horse pen was 100 feet from a home, and was therefore in violation of a local law requiring a distance of 500 feet, did not demonstrate per se nuisance:
The per se nuisance claim is based upon the undisputed location of plaintiffs’ horse pen about 100 feet from defendants’ home, in alleged violation of a local law that requires such pens to be separated from dwellings by at least 500 feet (see Local Law No. 1 [2010] of Village of Valley Falls § 9). We disagree with defendants that the declaration in the local law that such a violation is a “nuisance” (see Local Law No. 1 [2010] of Village of Valley Falls § 7) is sufficient, without more, to establish their claim of nuisance per se…. A showing that the pen is unlawful excuses defendants only from proving that plaintiffs’ actions were negligent or intentional; the other elements of a nuisance cause of action must still be shown … . A private nuisance claim requires a showing of “intentional action or inaction that substantially and unreasonably interferes with other people’s use and enjoyment of their property” … . Defendants did not prove entitlement to summary judgment on the per se nuisance claim, as they relied exclusively on the alleged local law violation and offered no proof that the horse pen’s placement caused a substantial or unreasonable interference – and notably, such determinations “ordinarily turn[] on questions of fact”… . Overocker v Madigan, 516957, 3rd Dept 1-9-14