You are here: / / NOXIOUS ODORS FROM A LANDFILL DID NOT SUPPORT THE PUBLIC NUISANCE AND NEGLIGENCE...
, ,

NOXIOUS ODORS FROM A LANDFILL DID NOT SUPPORT THE PUBLIC NUISANCE AND NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION; COMPLAINT DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Lynch, over a dissent, reversing Supreme Court, determined the public nuisance and negligence causes of action stemming from odors from a landfill should have been dismissed. The public nuisance cause of action alleged only injury to the public at large, not the required special injury unique to the parties. The negligence cause of action did not allege any tangible property damage or physical injury:

… [P]laintiffs here have not asserted an injury that is different in kind from the relevant community at large, which, in our view, consists of the other homeowners and renters impacted by the landfill’s odors … . * * *

To recover in negligence, a plaintiff must sustain either physical injury or property damage resulting from the defendant’s alleged negligent conduct … . …

… [T]he noxious odors at issue are transient in nature and do not have a continuing physical presence. … [P]laintiffs have not alleged any tangible property damage or physical injury resulting from exposure to the odors. … [T]he economic loss resulting from the diminution of plaintiffs’ property values is not, standing alone, sufficient to sustain a negligence claim under New York law … . Davies v S.A. Dunn & Co., LLC, 2021 NY Slip Op 05751, Third Dept 10-21-21

Similar issues and result in Duncan v Capital Region Landfills, Inc., 2021 NY Slip Op 05757, Third Dept 10-21-21

​

You might also like
Residential Health Care Facility’s Medicaid Reimbursement Disallowed with Respect to Certain Operating Costs
THERE WAS NO GOOD REASON TO DENY PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR A WITNESS, DETERMINATION ANNULLED AND EXPUNGED.
Dry-Cleaning Chemical, PERC, Is Not “Petroleum” Within the Meaning of the Navigation Law—Plaintiff’s Suit for Clean-Up of PERC Under the Navigation Law Properly Dismissed
Guidelines With Pre-Authorized Specific Procedure List for Medical Tests and Services Held Valid; Variance Procedure for Tests and Services Not on List Held Valid
STATE ENTITLED TO QUALIFIED IMMUNITY WITH RESPECT TO THE ABSENCE OF A GUIDE RAIL ALONG A HIGHWAY.
THE BOARD ACCEPTED ONE EXPERT’S OPINION AND REJECTED THE OTHER BASED ON AN ISSUE THE EXPERTS WERE NEVER ASKED ABOUT; DECISION REVERSED (THIRD DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S OMISSIONS, INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS AND LIES AFTER A ROUTINE TRAFFIC STOP JUSTIFIED THE CANINE SNIFF.
Failure to Directly Address a Juror’s Stated Bias Required Reversal—“Bright Line” Rule 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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

THE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES DID NOT MEET ITS BURDEN OF PROOF ON ITS ABANDONMENT... CLAIMANT WAS NOT AN EMPLOYEE OF A COMPANY RUNNING A WEBSITE AND APP TO CONNECT...