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
SUPREME COURT DID NOT ERR IN HOLDING THE SORA HEARING IN DEFENDANT’S ABSENCE WITHOUT MAKING A DETERMINATION OF DEFENDANT’S COMPETENCE, THERE WERE CLEAR SIGNS DEFENDANT DID NOT UNDERSTAND THE PROCEEDINGS.
PLAINTIFF IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT SUBMIT THE BUSINESS RECORDS RELEVANT TO DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT, RENDERING THE AFFIDAVIT ALLEGING DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT HEARSAY (SECOND DEPT).
EXCESSIVE INTERFERENCE BY THE JUDGE DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF A FAIR TRIAL.
POLICE REPORT DID NOT NOTIFY CITY OF THE NATURE OF PETITIONER’S FALSE ARREST, FALSE IMPRISONMENT AND MALICIOUS PROSECUTION CLAIMS, PETITION TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT
THE COVID TOLL OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS RENDERED THIS NEGLIGENCE ACTION AGAINST A MUNICIPALITY TIMELY (SECOND DEPT). ​
DISCOVERY VIOLATIONS WARRANTED DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT (SECOND DEPT).
IT WAS ALLEGED ONE MAN INTENDED TO DOUSE ANOTHER WITH LIQUID IN A CUP BUT UNINTENTIONALLY THREW THE CUP ITSELF CAUSING INJURY; THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE INJURY WAS CAUSED BY INTENTIONAL CONDUCT OR AN ACCIDENT (SECOND DEPT).
THE COUNTERCLAIM FOR LOST PROFITS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE “LOST PROFITS” AS CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES WAS CONTEMPLATED BY THE PARTIES AT THE TIME THE CONTRACT FOR THE SALE OF GOODS WAS ENTERED; THE MOTION TO DISMISS THE COUNTERCLAIM SHOULD 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...