You are here: / / PUBLIC VERSUS PRIVATE NUISANCE EXPLAINED; BECAUSE DEFENDANTS SOLD THEIR...
, , ,

PUBLIC VERSUS PRIVATE NUISANCE EXPLAINED; BECAUSE DEFENDANTS SOLD THEIR PROPERTY, THE APPEAL RELATED TO THE INJUNCTION CAUSE OF ACTION WAS MOOT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined plaintiffs’ private nuisance cause of action should not have been dismissed, but the public nuisance cause of action was properly dismissed. The Third Department noted that, because defendants’ property had been sold, the injunction aspect of the case was moot. The defendants had put in a parking area and a retaining wall which plaintiffs’ alleged blocked their view of oncoming traffic making it dangerous for plaintiffs’ to pull out from their driveway:

Plaintiffs’ complaint alleges that defendants paved a significant area of their front yard and proceeded to park cars and trucks thereon, and, as a result, their view of oncoming traffic was significantly hindered when they used their driveway. As a consequence, they claimed that they suffered great anxiety, as they continually worried about being in a traffic accident. What plaintiffs can ultimately prove, or whether damages of this sort are recoverable, is not our concern when determining a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action … . Rather, “the dispositive inquiry is whether plaintiffs have a cause of action and not whether one has been stated, i.e., whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory” … . Here, after applying the strict standards of a pre-answer motion to dismiss, we conclude that Supreme Court erred in dismissing plaintiffs’ cause of action for private nuisance.

… “A public nuisance is actionable by a private person only if it is shown that the person suffered special injury beyond that suffered by the community at large” … . Plaintiffs have not alleged that defendants interfered with the use of a public place or public rights. The complaint alleges that plaintiffs and the public (pedestrian, cyclist or motorist) are at risk of suffering a collision. “[W]here the claimed injury is common to the entire community, a private right of action is barred” … . Moreover, we find without merit plaintiffs’ claim that they suffer a special damage in that they will suffer liability as a result of any collision that might occur. Even were we to conclude that this claim is not completely speculative, the injury proposed by plaintiffs is not different in kind, but merely in degree, to that which may be suffered by the public as a whole. As such, it does not qualify as a “special injury” so as to allow plaintiffs to bring a public nuisance cause of action … . Duffy v Baldwin, 2020 NY Slip Op 02836, Third Dept 5-14-20

 

You might also like
Relationship Between Mother and Father Had Not Deteriorated to the Extent that the Joint Custody Arrangement Should Have Been Modified to Award Sole Custody to Mother
PLAINTIFF ALLEGED HE WAS PUNCHED IN THE FACE BY A BAR EMPLOYEE AND SUED THE BAR FOR BREACH OF A DUTY TO KEEP THE PREMISES SAFE, WHICH WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED AS UNTIMELY, NEGLIGENT HIRING AND SUPERVISION, WHICH SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, AND VICARIOUS LIABILITY, WHICH ALTHOUGH INCONSISTENT WITH NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION, CAN BE PLED IN THE ALTERNATIVE (THIRD DEPT).
Plaintiff Properly Relied on the Doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur to Survive Summary Judgment
FEDERAL DRUG CONSPIRACY CONVICTION CANNOT BE USED AS A PREDICATE FELONY FOR SECOND FELONY OFFENDER ADJUDICATION, ILLEGAL SENTENCE NEED NOT BE PRESERVED FOR APPEAL BY OBJECTION (THIRD DEPT).
JUDGE IMPOSED RESTITUTION AT SENTENCING WHICH WAS NOT PART OF THE PLEA AGREEMENT, SENTENCE VACATED.
NYS PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION PROPERLY IMPOSED A MORATORIUM ON ENERGY SERVICE COMPANIES’ ENROLLMENTS AND RENEWALS OF CUSTOMERS WHO PARTICIPATE IN UTILITY LOW INCOME ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS AS PART OF ITS AUTHORITY TO MAKE SURE LOW INCOME CUSTOMERS ARE NOT CHARGED MORE THAN THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN HAD THEY JUST USED A UTILITY (THIRD DEPT).
DEFENDANT PLED GUILTY IN RETURN FOR A SENTENCE WHICH WAS LATER DETERMINED TO BE UNAUTHORIZED; DEFENDANT THEN CONSENTED TO A RESENTENCE WHICH WAS LONGER THAN THAT ORIGINALLY PROMISED; BECAUSE DEFENDANT WAS NOT EXPRESSLY AFFORDED THE OPPORTUNITY TO WITHDRAW HER PLEA, THE RESENTENCE WAS VACATED AND THE MATTER REMITTED; THE SENTENCING JUDGE CAN FASHION A SENTENCE WHICH IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ORIGINAL PROMISE BY REDUCING THE OFFENSE CHARGED (THIRD DEPT).
CLAIMANT, WHO DISTRIBUTED BAKED GOODS UNDER A DISTRIBUTION CONTRACT, WAS AN EMPLOYEE ENTITLED TO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

REFERENCES TO DEVIATE BEHAVIOR AND USE OF FORCE IN PETITIONER-INMATE’S... ALTHOUGH MOTHER DID NOT APPEAR AT THE SCHEDULED CONFERENCE AND DID NOT HAVE...