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
Arbitrator Did Not Have the Authority (CPLR 7511) to Modify an Award by Adding Interest, Even If Interest Should Have Been Awarded as a Matter of Law
COUNTY COURT JUDGE DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ISSUE A VERDICT BASED UPON THE REVIEW OF THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE PRIOR NON-JURY TRIAL WHICH HAD BEEN HELD BEFORE A DIFFERENT JUDGE AND REVERSED 3RD DEPT.
FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DELEGATED TO MOTHER THE AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE FATHER’S PARENTING TIME (THIRD DEPT).
CLAIMANT WAS NOT ALLOWED TO SUBMIT AS EVIDENCE A FLYER FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR WHICH INDICATED IT WAS NECESSARY TO APPLY FOR STATE UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS TO RECEIVE FEDERAL PANDEMIC UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS; THE EVIDENCE WAS RELEVANT TO WHETHER CLAIMANT WILLFULLY MISREPRESENTED HER EMPLOYMENT STATUS AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED; MATTER REMITTED (THIRD DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER STACKED SCAFFOLDING, WHICH WAS ON THE SAME LEVEL AS PLAINTIFF, CONSTITUTED A “PHYSICALLY SIGNIFICANT ELEVATION DIFFERENTIAL,” SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
PLAINTIFF’S “INADEQUATE FALL-PROTECTION” CAUSES OF ACTION SOUNDED IN MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, NOT NEGLIGENCE; THEREFORE PLAINTIFF’S AFFIDAVIT FROM A NURSE WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO OVERCOME DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WHICH WAS SUPPORTED BY AN AFFIDAVIT FROM A PHYSICIAN (THIRD DEPT). ​
Misspellings Did Not Render Signatures Invalid
OWNERS OF PROPERTY ABUTTING A ROADWAY CANNOT PROHIBIT PARKING ALONG THE ROADWAY UNLESS PARKED CARS IMPEDE ACCESS TO THE OWNERS’ PROPERTY (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...