You are here: / Nuisance
,

PLAINTIFF REAL ESTATE DEVELOPER’S PRIVATE NUISANCE, PUBLIC NUISANCE AND NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION BASED UPON THE ALLEGED NOXIOUS ODORS FROM DEFENDANT’S LANDFILL SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the plaintiff real estate developer causes of action against defendant landfill operation for private nuisance, public nuisance and negligence, based upon noxious odors from the landfill, should have been dismissed: Plaintiff alleged the odors made it difficult to sell homes and reduced the value of properties in the vicinity of the landfill:

… [A] private nuisance is one that “threatens one person or . . . relatively few” … . … [P]laintiff’s allegations indicate that the noxious odors affected a large number of community residents and, therefore, we conclude that plaintiff’s cause of action for private nuisance must be dismissed … . …

… [A] public nuisance consists of “a substantial interference with the exercise of a common right of the public, thereby offending public morals, interfering with the use by the public of a public place or endangering or injuring the property, health, safety or comfort of a considerable number of persons” … . “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” … .

Here, plaintiff alleged that it suffered a special injury because it “suffered lost profit[s] and other substantial economic loss,” including “irreparable damage to its reputation in the community as a residential home builder.” … [P]laintiff did not allege facts sufficient to support a public nuisance cause of action. It failed to allege that it sustained any harm or damages that were “different in kind, not merely in degree,” from the community at large … .

* * * [P]laintiff “ha[s] not alleged any tangible property damage or physical injury resulting from exposure to the odors” and, “likewise, the economic loss resulting from the diminution of plaintiff[‘s] property values is not, standing alone, sufficient to sustain a negligence claim under New York law” … . William Metrose Ltd. Builder/Developer v Waste Mgt. of N.Y., LLC, 2024 NY Slip Op 01458, Fourth Dept 3-15-24

Practice Point: Here noxious odors from a landfill did not support causes of action for private nuisance, public nuisance or negligence, criteria explained.

 

,

PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANTS ARE NEIGHBORS; PRIVATE NUISANCE CAUSES OF ACTION BASED UPON DEFENDANTS’ YEARLY FIREWORKS DISPLAYS AND EXCESSIVE NOISE FROM POOL EQUIPMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; A TRESPASS CAUSE OF ACTION BASED UPON DEBRIS FROM THE FIREWORKS FALLING ON PLAINTIFF’S PROPERTY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined certain causes of action for private nuisance and trespass should not have been dismissed. Plaintiff and defendants are neighbors. The private nuisance causes of action based upon defendant’s fireworks displays every year and excessive noise from defendants’ pool equipment should not have been dismissed. In addition, the trespass action based upon debris falling on plaintiff’s property from the fireworks should not have been dismissed:

“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 failure to act” … . “Not every annoyance will constitute a nuisance. Nuisance imports a continuous invasion of rights—a pattern of continuity or recurrence of objectionable conduct” … . “Except for the issue of whether the plaintiff has the requisite property interest, each of the other elements is a question for the jury, unless the evidence is undisputed” … * * *

“The elements of a cause of action sounding in trespass are an intentional entry onto the land of another without justification or permission, or a refusal to leave after permission has been granted but thereafter withdrawn” … . “An invasion of another’s property or airspace need not be more than de minimis in order to constitute a trespass” … . “Generally, intangible intrusions, such as by noise, odor, or light alone, are treated as nuisances, not trespass because they interfere with nearby property owners’ use and enjoyment of their land, not with their exclusive possession of it” … . Del Vecchio v Gangi, 2024 NY Slip Op 01292, Second Dept 3-13-24

Practice Point: The elements of private nuisance and trespass explained in the context of allegations by one neighbor against another concerning fireworks displays and excessive noise from pool equipment.

 

, , ,

PLAINTIFF ALLEGED CONSTRUCTION WORK ON DEFENDANT’S PROPERTY CAUSED WATER TO ENCROACH ON PLAINTIFF’S PROPERTY; THE NEGLIGENCE ACTION WAS TIME-BARRED BECAUSE THE CONSTRUCTION WORK WAS DONE MORE THAN THREE YEARS BEFORE THE ACTION WAS FILED; THE RELATED NUISANCE AND TRESPASS ACTIONS WERE NOT TIME-BARRED BECAUSE THEY MAY CONSTITUTE “CONTINUING WRONGS” (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the negligence cause of action was time-barred but the related nuisance and trespass actions constituted “continuing wrongs” and therefore were not time-barred. Plaintiff alleged defendant did construction work on defendant’s property which caused water to encroach on plaintiff’s property. Because the construction work was done more than three years before the action was filed, the negligence action was not timely:

The defendant demonstrated, prima facie, that the negligence cause of action was barred under the applicable three-year statute of limitations (see CPLR 214[4]) by submitting evidence that the allegedly negligent construction work performed on its property occurred in or around June 2012, more than four years prior to the commencement of this action … .

… Here, the acts of continuous nuisance and trespass alleged in the amended complaint may give rise to successive causes of action pursuant to the continuous wrong doctrine … . Jefferson v New Life Tabernacle, Inc., 2024 NY Slip Op 01295, Second Dept 3-13-24

Practice Point: Here construction work on defendant’s land was alleged to have caused water to encroach on plaintiff’s property. The negligence action accrued when the construction work was done and was time-barred. But the related nuisance and trespass actions may constitute “continuing wrongs” which were not time-barred.

 

,

A CON EDISION TRANSFORMER MINI PAD WHICH ENCROACHED SIX INCHES ONTO PLAINTIFFS’ PROPERTY WAS A TRESPASS ENTITLING PLAINTIFFS TO NOMINAL DAMAGES; THE STICKER ON THE TRANSFORMER WARNING TO STAY THREE FEET AWAY FROM THE TRANSFORMER WAS A NUISANCE, AN INTANGIBLE INTRUSION, NOT A TRESPASS (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the installation of a transformer mini pad by Con Edison which encroached six inches onto plaintiffs’ property was a trespass and defendant was liable for nominal damages of $1. The sticker on the mini pad warning people to stay three feet away was not a trespass. Rather the warning was an intangible intrusion constituting a nuisance:

 “‘[A] trespass claim represents an injury to the right of possession'” … . “[C]ourts have precluded trespass claims where the entry or intrusion was intangible, such as the occurrence of vibrations, shading of a plaintiff’s property, or a permeating odor or vapors of gasoline” … . “Generally, intangible intrusions, such as by noise, odor, or light alone, are treated as nuisances, not trespass [because] they interfere with nearby property owners’ use and enjoyment of their land, not with their exclusive possession of it”… .

“[N]ominal damages are presumed from a trespass even where the property owner has suffered no actual injury to his or her possessory interest” … . “Nominal damages are defined as a trifling sum awarded to a plaintiff in an action where there is no substantial loss or injury to be compensated, but still the law recognizes a technical invasion of his [or her] rights or a breach of the defendant’s duty” … . “These are formal damages as distinguished from real or substantial ones” … . Shrage v Con Edison Co., 2023 NY Slip Op 02694, Second Dept 5-17-23

Practice Point: A Con Edison transformer which encroached six inches onto plaintiffs’ land was a trespass entitled plaintiffs to nominal damages.

Practice Point: The sticker on the transformer warning to stay three feet away was a nuisance, an intangible intrusion, not a trespass.

 

, , ,

NEW YORK HAS JURISDICTION OVER OUT-OF-STATE DEFENDANT JUUL LABS, THE MANUFACTURER OF ELECTRONIC CIGARETTES, AND TWO CORPORATE OFFICERS IN AN ACTION ALLEGING DECEPTIVE BUSINESS PRACTICES, FRAUD AND PUBLIC NUISANCE (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department determined New York had jurisdiction over the defendant JUUL, the manufacture of electronic cigarettes, and two corporate officers involved JUUL’s marketing campaign in New York. The complaint alleged “causes of action pursuant to General Business Law §§ 349 and 350, for deceptive acts and practices and for false advertising, respectively; pursuant to Executive Law § 63(12), for repeated and persistent fraud and illegal conduct in violation of General Business Law §§ 349 and 350 and section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 USC § 45); and, for public nuisance.”:

… [T]he People submitted internal emails and reports demonstrating … that defendants traveled to New York City for investment meetings … ; that defendants personally attended JUUL’s launch party in New York City …, JUUL also sought to arrange in-person meetings between defendants and both “New York targets” and broadcast media organizations; and, that defendants and JUUL considered the New York City launch to have been a success.

… [D]efendants were involved in marketing strategy, which included … months of events in New York; identifying New York as the target of JUUL’s northeastern U.S. marketing efforts, at and after launch; advertising on billboards in Times Square; hosting in-store product samplings at New York vape shops and social events; and escalating marketing efforts in the New York City metropolitan area post-launch. After New York proved to be a substantial market for JUUL’s product, defendants went so far as to describe the efforts as “NYC takeover” and to declare that New York City users should be “the focus of [JUUL’s] branding/marketing.”

This evidence establishes that defendants conducted sufficient in-person activities within New York State related to the People’s claims against them in this action, and sufficiently supports the exercise of specific personal jurisdiction over them pursuant to CPLR 302(a)(1) … . People v JUUL Labs, Inc., 2023 NY Slip Op 00040, First Dept 1-5-22

Practice Point: Here New York demonstrated it had personal jurisdiction over the out-of-state manufacturer of electronic cigarettes and two corporate officers involved in marketing the cigarettes in New York. The complaint alleged deceptive business practices, fraud and public nuisance.

 

, , ,

THE CITY’S COMPLAINT ALLEGED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR PUBLIC NUISANCE BASED UPON DEFENDANT’S SALE OF UNSTAMPED, UNTAXED CIGARETTES (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the plaintiff-city’s complaint stated a cause of action for public nuisance against defendant City Tobacco House for selling unstamped, untaxed cigarettes:

… [T]he complaint alleged that City Tobacco House was a commercial establishment where several violations of Tax Law § 1814(b) and Administrative Code § 11-4012(b) had occurred during the six-month period preceding the commencement of this action. On one occasion, law enforcement officers allegedly recovered 8.4 cartons of untaxed cigarettes at the subject premises, and one person was arrested and charged with violating Tax Law § 1814. On another occasion, 28 packs of untaxed cigarettes allegedly were recovered from the subject premises, and one person was arrested and charged with violating Tax Law § 1814. On two other occasions, an undercover police officer allegedly purchased one pack of untaxed cigarettes from an employee in the subject premises. On another occasion, the execution of a search warrant at the subject premises allegedly resulted in the seizure of 64 packs of untaxed cigarettes and the arrest of one person. * * *

The allegations of unlawful conduct … , along with the allegation in the complaint that City Tobacco House knowingly conducted or maintained the subject premises as a place where persons gathered for purposes of engaging in conduct that violated Tax Law § 1814 and Administrative Code § 11-4012(b), were sufficient to allege the commission of criminal nuisance in the second degree, as defined in Penal Law § 240.45. Thus, having alleged facts supporting the proposition that City Tobacco House was a place “wherein there is occurring a criminal nuisance as defined in section 240.45 of the penal law” (Administrative Code § 7-703[l]), the complaint validly alleged the existence of a public nuisance at the subject premises. City of New York v Land & Bldg. Known as 4802 4th Ave., 2022 NY Slip Op 05988, Second Dept 10-26-22

Practice Point: Here the city’s allegation defendant sold unstamped, untaxed cigarettes stated a cause of action for public nuisance.

 

, , , ,

TENANTS’ CAUSES OF ACTION FOR TENANT (STATUTORY) HARASSMENT, PRIVATE NUISANCE, ASSAULT, BREACH OF THE WARRANTY OF HABITABILITY, AS WELL AS THE CLAIM FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES, REINSTATED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, reinstated plaintiffs-tenants’ causes of action for statutory harassment, private nuisance, assault, breach of the warranty of habitability, as well as the demand for punitive damages, in this action by tenants against the landlord alleging both habitability-issues and the landlord’s imminent threat to use force. With respect to the tenant (statutory) harassment cause of action, the court wrote:

Plaintiffs alleged … there were repeated interruptions of essential services such as heat, hot water, gas, and electricity, as well as disruptions in elevator service, phone, television, and internet service; large amounts of construction dust, including lead dust, in the public hallways; flooding and mold on the tenth floor; rat and vermin infestations; a lack of building security in the lobby and a lack of a fire safety system. * * *

The complaint states a cause of action for harassment under Administrative Code of City of NY §§ 27—2005(d) and 27—2115(m), as Supreme Court is “a court of competent jurisdiction” for the purposes of Administrative Code § 27—2115(m)(2) … . Contrary to the motion court’s determination, the statute expressly provides that only claims arising [from conditions in the building, that is, under subparagraphs b, c, and g of Administrative Code § 27-2004(a)(48)(ii), require the existence of a predicate violation to state a claim for harassment. Here, plaintiffs assert their first cause of action under Administrative Code § 27-2004(a)(48)(ii)(a), based on allegations that defendant Chelsea Hotel Owner, LLC’s principal, defendant Ira Drukier, was “making express or implied threats that force will be used” against plaintiffs, and therefore no predicate violation was required for this cause of action. …

On the third cause of action, for harassment arising from deprivation of services, plaintiffs state a claim under the statute by asserting that the alleged conditions were the subject of violations that, if established, would support a claim for harassment (see Robinson v Day, 103 AD3d 584, 587 [1st Dept 2013] [“A complaint need only ‘allege the misconduct complained of in sufficient detail to inform the defendants of the substance of the claims'”]). Evidence of the specific violations issued in connection with the alleged conditions may be obtained in discovery as contemplated by the statute (see Administrative Code § 27-2115[h][2][ii]). Berg v Chelsea Hotel Owner, LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 01511. First Dept 3-10-22

Practice Point: The courts have recently been fleshing out the proof requirements for tenant (statutory) harassment under the NYC Administrative Code. Here, both the habitability issues and the landlord’s assaultive behavior (imminent threat of force) fit into the criteria for a valid tenant (statutory) harassment cause of action.

 

, , , ,

IN THIS TENANT HARASSMENT AND PRIVATE NUISANCE ACTION BY TENANTS AGAINST THE LANDLORD, SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE GRANTED THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ENTIRELY PROHIBITING VIDEO CAMERAS IN THE INTERIOR OF THE BUILDING (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the tenant-plaintiffs were entitled to a preliminary injunction prohibiting the landlord from maintaining video cameras in the interior of the building. Supreme Court had only prohibited video cameras outside the bathrooms. The tenants alleged the landlord was taking actions designed to force them to leave and alleged causes of action for tenant harassment and private nuisance:

Generally, the decision to grant or deny a preliminary injunction lies within the sound discretion of the Supreme Court … . “[A] movant must establish (1) a probability of success on the merits, (2) a danger of irreparable injury in the absence of an injunction, and (3) a balance of the equities in the movant’s favor” … . In granting, in part, those branches of the plaintiffs’ motion which were for a preliminary injunction enjoining the defendants from operating the video cameras in the interior portions of the property and from conducting inspections on the property without reasonable notice, the court properly, in effect, determined that the plaintiffs had established a probability of success on the merits, a danger of irreparable injury, and that the equities favor them. The court, however, improvidently exercised its discretion in limiting that preliminary injunction to enjoining the defendants only from operating video cameras that capture persons entering or exiting any bathrooms in the property. Under the circumstances of this case, the court should have granted that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion in its entirety, and preliminarily enjoined the defendants from operating video cameras in the interior portions of the property. Suchdev v Grunbaum, 2022 NY Slip Op 01195, Second Dept 2-23-22

 

, , , ,

PLAINTIFFS-TENANTS STATED CLAIMS FOR TENANT HARASSMENT, PRIVATE NUISANCE, INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS AND PUNITIVE DAMAGES FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE ELECTRICITY, WATER, HEAT AND VENTILATION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff-tenants stated claims for tenant (statutory) harassment, private nuisance, intentional infliction of emotional distress and punitive damages in connection with failure to provide electricity, water, heat and ventilation:

The complaint states a cause of action for harassment under Administrative Code of City of NY §§ 27-2005 (d) and 27-2115 (m) … . Namely, it sufficiently alleges that defendants failed to provide essential services, including electricity, water, heat, and ventilation, resulting in violations of the Housing Maintenance Code, and that that failure was calculated to and did cause plaintiffs to vacate their apartment … . …

Defendants do not oppose the reinstatement of the claims for private nuisance or intentional infliction of emotional distress, opting to litigate those claims on the merits. However, contrary to defendants’ contention, punitive damages may be appropriate under both causes of action if the alleged acts are shown to be intentional or malicious … . Carlson v Chelsea Hotel Owner, LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 01117, First Dept 2-22-22

 

, , ,

ALLOWING DRIVING AND PARKING ON A LONG ISLAND BEACH MAY CONSTITUTE A PRIVATE AND PUBLIC NUISANCE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the causes of action for private and public nuisance against the town and village, based upon the code provisions and rules allowing vehicles to drive and park on the beach, should not have been dismissed:

… [P]hotographs of the subject beach area as well as the affidavits of [plaintiff] and her family describing the conditions on the beach raised triable issues of fact as to whether driving and parking in the subject beach area, in the manner and at the intensity allegedly occurring at the time of this action, was of an unreasonable character. …

“A public nuisance exists for conduct that amounts to a substantial interference with the exercise of a common right of the public, thereby offending public morals, interfering with the use by the public of a public place or endangering or injuring the property, health, safety or comfort of a considerable number of persons” … . Here, contrary to the court’s conclusion, triable issues of fact existed as to whether summer daytime beach driving and parking in the subject beach area, in the manner and at the intensity allegedly occurring at the time of this action, endangered the health and safety of members of the public who use that portion of the beach as well as the beach itself, including the lands seaward of the high-water line, which are held in trust for the public. Thomas v Trustees of the Freeholders & Commonalty of the Town of Southampton, 2022 NY Slip Op 00894, Second Dept 2-9-22

 

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 © 2024 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy