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
CLAIMANT LEFT HIS EMPLOYER’S FARM BRIEFLY USING HIS EMPLOYER’S ATV AND WAS STRUCK BY A VEHICLE WHEN HE ATTEMPTED TO RETURN TO THE FARM, THERE WAS EVIDENCE CLAIMANT CONSUMED ALCOHOL WHICH WAS PROHIBITED BY HIS EMPLOYER, CLAIMANT’S INJURIES DID NOT ARISE FROM HIS EMPLOYMENT, WORKER’S COMPENSATION CLAIM PROPERLY DENIED (THIRD DEPT).
FATHER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SENTENCED TO JAIL FOR NONPAYMENT OF CHILD SUPPORT BECAUSE HE HAD PAID THE ARREARS BEFORE THE ORDER OF COMMITMENT WAS ISSUED (THIRD DEPT).
GRANDMOTHER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES JUSTIFYING AWARD OF CUSTODY OF GRANDCHILD TO HER, ANALYTICAL PRINCIPLES EXPLAINED.
THE PLEADINGS ALLEGED THE NEGLIGENCE OF THE HOSPITAL’S “AGENTS AND EMPLOYEES” AND PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT POINTED TO THE ALLEGED NEGLIGENCE OF THE EMERGENCY ROOM PHYSICIAN WHO TREATED PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT; THEREFORE THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE HOSPITAL WOULD BE VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR THE EMERGENCY ROOM PHYSICIAN’S ACTS OR OMISSIONS (THIRD DEPT).
PETITIONER, A POLICE OFFICER, WAS ASKED BY HER SUPERVISOR TO PICK UP A LARGE BREAKFAST ORDER FOR THE PRECINCT; PETITIONER SLIPPED AND FELL ON ICE IN THE PARKING LOT WHEN RETURNING WITH THE ORDER; PETITIONER WAS “IN SERVICE” WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE RETIREMENT AND SOCIAL SECURITY LAW WHEN SHE FELL (THIRD DEPT).
COUNTY COURT DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO REQUIRE DEFENDANT TO PAY COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH AN ALCOHOL-MONITORING BRACELET.
Four-Month Statute of Limitations Starts Running When Administrative Agency’s Policy Change Is “Readily Ascertainable,” Not When Notice of the Policy Change Is Actually Received
Grant of Writ of Prohibition Reversed—Criteria for Writ Explained

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...