You are here: / / NOXIOUS ODORS FROM A PLASTIC-MANUFACTURING FACILITY CANNOT BE THE BASIS...
, ,

NOXIOUS ODORS FROM A PLASTIC-MANUFACTURING FACILITY CANNOT BE THE BASIS OF A NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION BECAUSE THE ODORS HAVE NOT CAUSED PHYSICAL INJURY OR PROPERTY DAMAGE (ECONOMIC LOSS IS NOT SUFFICIENT); THE NOXIOUS ODORS DO SUPPORT A PRIVATE NUISANCE CAUSE OF ACTION EVEN THOUGH A LARGE NUMBER OF PRIVATE CITIZENS IN THIS CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT ARE AFFECTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court in this class action lawsuit, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Voutsinas, over a concurrence and partial dissent, determined (1) noxious odors emanating from defendant’s plastic-manufacturing facility are properly the subject of a private nuisance cause of action on behalf of a collective of individuals, and (2) the noxious odors are not a proper subject for a negligence cause of action because no tangible physical harm or property damage was alleged (diminution in property value is not enough):

“‘To recover in negligence [or gross negligence], a plaintiff must sustain either physical injury or property damage resulting from the defendant’s alleged negligent conduct . . . This limitation serves a number of important purposes: it defines the class of persons who actually possess a cause of action, provides a basis for the factfinder to determine whether a litigant actually possesses a claim, and protects court dockets from being clogged with frivolous and unfounded claims'” … .

“Although [the] defendant undoubtedly owes surrounding property owners a duty of care to avoid injuring them . . . , the question is whether [the] plaintiff[s] sustained the required injury” … . “‘[T]he economic loss resulting from the diminution of [the] plaintiff[s’] property values is not, standing alone, sufficient to sustain a negligence claim under New York law'” … . * * *

“‘The elements of a private nuisance cause of action are: (1) an interference substantial in nature, (2) intentional in origin, (3) unreasonable in character, (4) with a person’s property right to use and enjoy land, (5) caused by another’s conduct in acting or failing to act'” … . …

A private nuisance cause of action is one where “[t]he rights invaded . . . are not suffered by the [plaintiffs] in their status as citizens or part of the public” … . Rather, the harm is suffered by the plaintiffs “in their private capacity in respect of an interference with the comfortable enjoyment of their homes,” which does not become a public nuisance “merely because a considerable number are injured” … . Dudley v API Indus., Inc., 2025 NY Slip Op 07379, Second Dept 12-31-25

Practice Point: Noxious odors do not support a negligence cause of action because there is no physical injury of property damage (diminished property value is not enough).

Practice Point: Noxious odors support a private nuisance cause of action, even where a large number of private citizens are affected.

 

You might also like
ALTHOUGH A FRYE HEARING WAS NOT NECESSARY BECAUSE BIOMECHANICAL ENGINEERING IS AN ACCEPTED SCIENTIFIC THEORY, THE BIOMECHANICAL ENGINEER’S TESTIMONY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE; NO FOUNDATION WAS LAID FOR THE ENGINEER’S TESTIMONY; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE DEFENSE VERDICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF DID NOT PROVE DEFENDANT OWNER OF DEFENDANT CORPORATION WAS PROPERLY SERVED WITH THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT BY SUBSTITUTE SERVICE; EVEN PROPER SUBSTITUTE SERVICE WOULD NOT BE SUFFICIENT TO ACQUIRE PERSONAL JURISDICTION OVER A CORPORATION (SECOND DEPT).
911 CALL PROPERLY ADMITTED AS PRESENT SENSE IMPRESSION OR EXCITED UTTERANCE, DEFENDANT PROPERLY GIVEN CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES FOR WOUNDING ONE VICTIM WITH THE INTENT TO SHOOT ANOTHER VICTIM (SECOND DEPT).
MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY PERSONNEL WERE ENGAGED IN A GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION RESPONDING TO PLAINTIFFS’ 911 CALL AND THERE WAS NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH THE PLAINTIFFS; MUNICIPAL DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS NEGLIGENCE, WRONGFUL DEATH ACTION PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
Co-Tenants of Dog Owner Can Be Strictly Liable for Harboring a Dog with Vicious Propensities—Co-Tenants’ Motions for Summary Judgment Should Have Been Denied
THE BANK’S MOTION TO RESTORE THE 2009 FORECLOSURE ACTION WHICH HAD BEEN ADMINISTRATIVELY, BUT NOT FORMALLY, DISMISSED SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THE BANK HAD PREVIOUSLY STATED ITS INTENTION TO DISCONTINUE THE 2009 FORECLOSURE BUT THE MOTION TO RESTORE WAS NOT PRECLUDED BY THE JUDICIAL ESTOPPEL DOCTRINE (SECOND DEPT).
A DEFECT IN THE TOP STEP OF A STAIRWAY WAS ALLEGED TO HAVE CAUSED THE TRIP AND FALL; THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE DEFECT WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS AND WHETHER THE DEFECT WAS A DANGEROUS CONDITION; THE COURT NOTED THAT AN OPEN AND OBVIOUS CONDITION MAY STILL BE DANGEROUS AND THE QUESTION IS USUALLY FOR A JURY TO DECIDE (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF WAS WORKING ON A ROOF WHEN HE ALLEGEDLY CONTACTED AN ELECTRIC WIRE LEADING TO THE HOME AND WAS KILLED; THE UTILITIES’ (CON EDISON’S) MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION ON THE GROUND IT OWED NO DUTY TO PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND 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

WHETHER FAMILY COURT HAD JURISDICTION OVER THIS FAMILY OFFENSE PROCEEDING DEPENDED... THE JUDGE’S RESTRICTIONS ON THE TESTIMONY OF THE DEFENSE “FALSE...