You are here: / Nuisance
, , ,

Violation of a Local Law Did Not Demonstrate a Horse Pen Constituted a Private Per Se Nuisance

The Third Department determined summary judgment was properly denied for a nuisance cause of action.  The fact that a horse pen was 100 feet from a home, and was therefore in violation of a local law requiring a distance of 500 feet, did not demonstrate per se nuisance:

The per se nuisance claim is based upon the undisputed location of plaintiffs’ horse pen about 100 feet from defendants’ home, in alleged violation of a local law that requires such pens to be separated from dwellings by at least 500 feet (see Local Law No. 1 [2010] of Village of Valley Falls § 9).  We disagree with defendants that the declaration in the local law that such a violation is a “nuisance” (see Local Law No. 1 [2010] of Village of Valley Falls § 7) is sufficient, without more, to establish their claim of nuisance per se….  A showing that the pen is unlawful excuses defendants only from proving that plaintiffs’ actions were negligent or intentional; the other elements of a nuisance cause of action must still be shown … .  A private nuisance claim requires a showing of “intentional action or inaction that substantially and unreasonably interferes with other people’s use and enjoyment of their property” … . Defendants did not prove entitlement to summary judgment on the per se nuisance claim, as they relied exclusively on the alleged local law violation and offered no proof that the horse pen’s placement caused a substantial or unreasonable interference – and notably, such determinations “ordinarily turn[] on questions of fact”… . Overocker v Madigan, 516957, 3rd Dept 1-9-14

 

, ,

Leaky Condominium Roof Supported Negligence and Nuisance

In an action based on a leaky roof in a condominium, the First Department determined plaintiffs were entitled to summary judgment on the negligence cause of action against the sponsor and the cause of action for nuisance, also sounding in negligence, should not be dismissed:

The sponsor owed a nondelegable duty to plaintiffs to keep the condominium, including its roof, in good repair (see Multiple Dwelling Law § 78[1];…) . The sponsor breached that duty: Its principal… admitted that the original roof that the sponsor had caused to be installed did not render the condominium watertight and that there were instances of water infiltration into plaintiffs’ unit that needed to be addressed by the sponsor. * * *

Plaintiffs are correct that nuisance can be negligent; it does not have to be intentional…. In any event, they raised a triable issue of fact whether the sponsor’s allowing water to continue infiltrating their unit was intentional….  Liberman v Cayre Synergy 73rd LLC, 2013 NY Slip Op 04996, 1st Dept 7-2-13

 

, , ,

Criteria for Punitive Damages Award

In an opinion by Chief Judge Lippman, the Court of Appeals explained the criteria for the award of punitive damages in the context of the intentional diversion of storm water onto plaintiff’s property.  In finding the award of punitive damages was not warranted the Court noted:  “…[T]he conduct justifying such an award must manifest ‘spite or malice, or a fraudulent or evil motive on the part of the defendant, or such a conscious and deliberate disregard of the interests of others that the conduct may be called willful or wanton’ …, ‘…conduct that represents a high degree of immorality and shows such wanton dishonesty as to imply a criminal indifference to civil obligations’ “. Marinaccio v Town of Clarence, et al, No. 31, CtApp 3-21-13

 

, , , , , ,

Injury to Real Property, Waste, Trespass, Conversion and Private Nuisance Actions Based Upon Removal of Trees from Unrecorded Easement

In an action for breach of contract, waste, injury to real property, trespass, conversion and private nuisance, based upon clearing land of trees pursuant to an unrecorded easement, the Second Department wrote:

Pursuant to RPAPL 861(1), a property owner may maintain an action for damages against any person who, without the consent of the owner, removes or causes to be removed trees on the owner’s property … . “To recover damages based on the tort of private nuisance, a plaintiff must establish an interference with his or her right to use and enjoy land, substantial in nature, intentional or negligent in origin, unreasonable in character, and caused by the defendant’s conduct”… . “In order to establish a cause of action to recover damages for conversion, the plaintiff must show legal ownership or an immediate superior right of possession to a specific identifiable thing and must show that the defendant exercised an unauthorized dominion over the thing in question . . . to the exclusion of the plaintiff’s rights” … . * * *

“[A]n unrecorded conveyance of an interest in real property is deemed void as against a subsequent good faith purchaser for value who acquires his interest without actual or constructive notice of the prior conveyance” … . However, “ [w]here a purchaser has knowledge of any fact, sufficient to put him on inquiry as to the existence of some right or title in conflict with that he is about to purchase, he is presumed either to have made the inquiry, and ascertained the extent of such prior right, or to have been guilty of a degree of negligence equally fatal to his claim, to be considered as a bona fide purchaser’” …. “This presumption, however, is a mere inference of fact, and may be repelled by proof that the purchaser failed to discover the prior right, notwithstanding the exercise of proper diligence on his part” … .   Schulz v Dattero, et al, 2013 NY Slip Op 01815, 2011-05813, 2012-02942, Index No 876/06, 2nd Dept. 3-20-13

 

, ,

A Shooting Victim’s Negligence and Public Nuisance Actions Against the Manufacturer, Distributor and Resellers of Firearms Is Allowed to Go Forward.

Back in October, 2012, in a full-fedged opinion by Justice Peradotto, the Fourth Department reversed Supreme Court’s dismissal of a complaint brought by a shooting victim which alleged negligence, public nuisance and intentional-violation-of-gun-laws causes of action against the manufacturer, distributor and resellers of firearms.  (Williams v Beemiller, Inc., et al, 100 AD3d 143).

Reargument was subsequently granted.  After reargument, the Fourth Department amended its October opinion by adding a new section.  Excerpts from the new section follow:

With respect to the common-law negligence cause of action, although “ ‘ [a] defendant generally has no duty to control the conduct of third persons so as to prevent them from harming others’ “ …, “[a] duty may arise … where there is a relationship…between defendant and a third-person’s actions “ … .  In Hamilton [v Berretta USA Corp., 96 NY2d 222], the Court of Appeals determined that no such relationship existed because the plaintiffs were unable to draw any connection between specific gun manufacturers and the criminal wrongdoers … . Here, by contrast, plaintiffs have alleged that defendants sold the specific gun used to shoot plaintiff to an unlawful straw purchaser for trafficking into the criminal market, and that defendants were aware that the straw purchaser was acting as a conduit to the criminal market. Thus, unlike in Hamilton, plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged that defendants “were a direct link in the causal chain that resulted in plaintiffs’ injuries, and that defendants were realistically in a position to prevent the wrongs” … .

Further [an] intervening criminal act does not necessarily sever the causal connection between the alleged negligence of defendants and plaintiff’s injury … . Rather, “liability turns upon whether the intervening act is a normal or foreseeable consequence of the situation created by the defendant[s’] negligence” … .  Here, plaintiffs allege that defendants… knowingly participated in the sale of 140 handguns, including 87 handguns in a single transaction, to [a] gun trafficking ring.  We conclude that those allegations are sufficient to raise a question of fact whether it was reasonably foreseeable that supplying large quantities of guns for resale to the criminal market would result in the shooting of an innocent victim ….

We likewise conclude that the allegations in the complaint are sufficient to state a cause of action for public nuisance … . [P]laintiffs allege that defendants violated federal and state laws by selling guns to a straw purchaser, who funneled the guns into the criminal gun market, thereby posing danger to the general public, and that plaintiff was injured by one of those guns. Thus, plaintiffs have alleged that defendants engaged in unlawful conduct that endangered the lives of “a considerable number of persons” … and that plaintiff “ ‘ suffered special injury beyond that suffered by the community at large’ “ … .Williams v Beemiller, Inc., Motion No. 938/12, CA 11-02092 Fourth Dept. 2-1-13

 

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