You are here: / Private Nuisance
, ,

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.

 

, ,

PLAINTIFFS’ ALLEGATION THAT THE WATER MAIN ON DEFENDANTS’ NEIGHBORING PROPERTY BROKE CAUSING WATER TO ENTER PLAINTIFFS’ BASEMENT STATED A NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER THE RES-IPSA-LOQUITUR THEORY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the allegation that defendants’ water main broke causing water to enter plaintiffs’ basement supported a negligence action based on the res-ipsa-loquitur theory. The trespass and private nuisance causes of action should have been dismissed because there was no evidence of defendants’ intentional conduct:

… [D]efendants failed to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on so much of the cause of action alleging negligence as was based on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. “For the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur to apply, a plaintiff must establish three conditions: ‘[f]irst, the event must be of a kind that ordinarily does not occur in the absence of someone’s negligence; second, it must be caused by an agency or instrumentality within the exclusive control of the defendant; and third, it must not have been due to any voluntary action or contribution on the part of the plaintiff'” … . “The doctrine has been applied to water main breaks and this type of event has frequently been cited as a typical example of a case where the doctrine is commonly applicable” … . … Because the defendants did not establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on so much of the cause of action alleging negligence as was based on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, the burden did not shift to the plaintiffs to raise a triable issue of fact in that regard … . Huang v Fort Greene Partnership Homes Condominium, 2024 NY Slip Op 03471, Second Dept 6-26-24

Practice Point: A water main break on defendant’s property causing water to enter the neighboring plaintiff’s basement states a negligence cause of action under the res-ipsa-loquitur theory.

 

, , , ,

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.

 

, , ,

PLAINTIFF’S ACTION FOR PRIVATE NUISANCE ALLEGING DEFENDANTS’ AIR CONDITIONING UNIT IS TOO LOUD SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the private nuisance cause of action should not have been dismissed. Plaintiff alleged defendants’ air conditioning unit made too much noise:

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” … . “[E]xcept 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” … .

Here, the plaintiff stated a cause of action to recover damages for private nuisance by alleging that the defendants’ air conditioning and condenser units generated a noise level exceeding that permitted by the Code of the Town of Hempstead … , which interfered with the plaintiff’s use and enjoyment of his bedroom, garden, and patio, and diminished his property value … . Curry v Matranga, 2021 NY Slip Op 03304, Second Dept 5-26-21

 

, , , , ,

PLAINTIFFS’ ACTION STEMMING FROM PFOA CONTAMINATION PROPERLY SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT; THE DOCTRINE OF PRIMARY JURISDICTION DID NOT APPLY; QUESTIONS OF FACT RAISED ABOUT THE DUTY OF CARE, PROXIMATE CAUSE, PRIVATE NUISANCE, TRESPASS AND PUNITIVE DAMAGES (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined plaintiffs’ complaint in this PFOA contamination case properly survived defendant’s motion for summary judgment. The court found that the doctrine of primary jurisdiction did not apply, defendant owed plaintiffs a duty of care, defendant did not demonstrate it did not proximately cause the alleged injuries, there was a question of fact on the private nuisance and trespass causes of action, and the punitive damages claim was proper. With respect to the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, the court wrote:

[The] doctrine “applies where a claim is originally cognizable in the courts, and comes into play whenever enforcement of the claim requires the resolution of issues which, under a regulatory scheme, have been placed within the special competence of an administrative body; in such a case the judicial process is suspended pending referral of such issues to the administrative body for its views”… . Defendant argues that the various regulatory agencies, who have the requisite expertise, have been investigating the matter at issue and that the recovery sought by plaintiffs is already being provided by these agencies. We disagree. Although defendant points to an announcement that the Department of Health will be providing medical monitoring, this announcement merely stated that a study was being proposed and that, if funded, the study would last for five years. Contrary to defendant’s representation, there was no definitive statement that the medical monitoring would be provided. As to the remediation of plaintiffs’ private wells, the consent order and other announcements, upon which defendant relies, do not address all of the relief requested by plaintiffs in the second amended complaint. Accordingly, defendant’s argument is without merit. Burdick v Tonoga, Inc, 2021 NY Slip Op 01178, Third Dept 2-25-21

 

, , ,

PUBLIC VERSUS PRIVATE NUISANCE EXPLAINED; BECAUSE DEFENDANTS SOLD THEIR PROPERTY, THE APPEAL RELATED TO THE INJUNCTION CAUSE OF ACTION WAS MOOT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined plaintiffs’ private nuisance cause of action should not have been dismissed, but the public nuisance cause of action was properly dismissed. The Third Department noted that, because defendants’ property had been sold, the injunction aspect of the case was moot. The defendants had put in a parking area and a retaining wall which plaintiffs’ alleged blocked their view of oncoming traffic making it dangerous for plaintiffs’ to pull out from their driveway:

Plaintiffs’ complaint alleges that defendants paved a significant area of their front yard and proceeded to park cars and trucks thereon, and, as a result, their view of oncoming traffic was significantly hindered when they used their driveway. As a consequence, they claimed that they suffered great anxiety, as they continually worried about being in a traffic accident. What plaintiffs can ultimately prove, or whether damages of this sort are recoverable, is not our concern when determining a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action … . Rather, “the dispositive inquiry is whether plaintiffs have a cause of action and not whether one has been stated, i.e., whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory” … . Here, after applying the strict standards of a pre-answer motion to dismiss, we conclude that Supreme Court erred in dismissing plaintiffs’ cause of action for private nuisance.

… “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” … . Plaintiffs have not alleged that defendants interfered with the use of a public place or public rights. The complaint alleges that plaintiffs and the public (pedestrian, cyclist or motorist) are at risk of suffering a collision. “[W]here the claimed injury is common to the entire community, a private right of action is barred” … . Moreover, we find without merit plaintiffs’ claim that they suffer a special damage in that they will suffer liability as a result of any collision that might occur. Even were we to conclude that this claim is not completely speculative, the injury proposed by plaintiffs is not different in kind, but merely in degree, to that which may be suffered by the public as a whole. As such, it does not qualify as a “special injury” so as to allow plaintiffs to bring a public nuisance cause of action … . Duffy v Baldwin, 2020 NY Slip Op 02836, Third Dept 5-14-20

 

, , , ,

SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE GRANTED PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT, DESPITE THE PASSAGE OF SIX YEARS SINCE THE ACTION WAS COMMENCED, THE COURT DOES NOT EXAMINE THE MERITS OF THE PLEADING UNLESS THE LACK OF MERIT IS CLEAR AND FREE FROM DOUBT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion to amend its complaint, which originally stemmed from the alleged encroachment of defendant’s pipes (since removed), should have been granted, despite the passage of six years (during which a default judgment was vacated):

The Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the plaintiff’s cross motion which was for leave to amend the complaint. Permission to amend a pleading should be “freely given” (CPLR 3025[b] …), where the proposed amendment is neither palpably insufficient nor patently devoid of merit, and there is no evidence that the amendment would prejudice or surprise the opposing party … . Mere lateness is not a basis for denying an amendment; ” [i]t must be lateness coupled with significant prejudice to the other side, the very elements of the laches doctrine'” … . The burden of establishing prejudice is on the party opposing the amendment … .

Here, notwithstanding the lengthy gap in time between the commencement of the action and the plaintiff’s cross motion for leave to amend the complaint, the defendant has made no showing that it was surprised by the new allegations or would be significantly prejudiced … . Moreover, some portion of that delay is attributable to the defendant’s effort to vacate its default and the parties’ subsequent motion practice and negotiations, and there is no contention that discovery has been concluded … .

Contrary to the defendant’s contentions, the proposed amendment is not palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit. “No evidentiary showing of merit is required under CPLR 3025(b)'” … , and “a court shall not examine the legal sufficiency or merits of a pleading unless [the] insufficiency or lack of merit is clear and free from doubt” … . The allegations of the proposed amendment and the submissions in support of it adequately set forth the requisite elements for causes of action alleging private nuisance and trespass … . Krakovski v Stavros Assoc., LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 05112, Second Dept 6-26-19

 

, , ,

PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT DID NOT STATE PRIVATE AND PUBLIC NUISANCE CAUSES OF ACTION BASED UPON SINKHOLES ON PLAINTIFFS’ LAND WHICH ALLEGEDLY RESULTED FROM THE FAILURE OF A BULKHEAD ON DEFENDANT’S PROPERTY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the plaintiffs did not state causes of action for private and public nuisance based upon the alleged effects of a body of navigable tidal water (Henry Street Basin) which is adjacent to plaintiffs’ and defendant’s properties. Plaintiffs alleged a bulkhead built by defendant was falling into disrepair resulting in sinkholes on plaintiffs’ property:

A nuisance is the actual invasion of interests in land, and it may arise from varying types of conduct” … . In the present case, the private nuisance claim is predicated upon the defendant’s alleged negligence in maintaining its property. Where “a nuisance has its origin in negligence, negligence must be proven” … . Duty is an essential element of negligence … .

Here, the defendant had no duty to prevent the natural encroachment of public waters upon Sunlight’s property… . The “maxim” that “requires one so to use his lands as not to injure his neighbor’s . . . does not require one lot owner so to improve his lot that his neighbor can make the most advantageous use of his, or be protected against its natural disadvantages” … . Accordingly, the plaintiffs have not stated a cause of action sounding in private nuisance … .

The plaintiffs further failed to state a cause of action sounding in public nuisance. “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, the plaintiffs’ mere allegation that “[t]he deteriorated state of the Bulkhead [was] substantially certain to result in an interference with the public’s use or enjoyment of the Henry Street Basin and/or may endanger or injure the health of persons using the Henry Street Basin” was too conclusory and speculative to set forth a viable cause of action sounding in public nuisance. Sunlight Clinton Realty, LLC v Gowanus Indus. Park, Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 06783, Second Dept 10-10-18

REAL PROPERTY LAW (NUISANCE, PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT DID NOT STATE PRIVATE AND PUBLIC NUISANCE CAUSES OF ACTION BASED UPON SINKHOLES ON PLAINTIFFS’ LAND WHICH ALLEGEDLY RESULTED FROM THE FAILURE OF A BULKHEAD ON DEFENDANT’S PROPERTY (SECOND DEPT))/NUISANCE (PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT DID NOT STATE PRIVATE AND PUBLIC NUISANCE CAUSES OF ACTION BASED UPON SINKHOLES ON PLAINTIFFS’ LAND WHICH ALLEGEDLY RESULTED FROM THE FAILURE OF A BULKHEAD ON DEFENDANT’S PROPERTY (SECOND DEPT))

, , , ,

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO REPLEAD WITH AN AMENDED COMPLAINT ALLEGING DEFENDANTS’ PLANTING AND WATERING ON DEFENDANTS’ SIDE OF PLAINTIFFS’ RETAINING WALL CONSTITUTED NEGLIGENCE, TRESPASS AND A PRIVATE NUISANCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiffs’ motion for leave to replead a private nuisance and trespass action should have been granted. Plaintiffs alleged defendants had negligently planted and watered on their side of plaintiffs’ retaining wall, damaging the wall:

… [T]he court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiffs’ motion, in effect, for leave to replead … . The standard to be applied on such a motion “is consistent with the standard governing motions for leave to amend pursuant to CPLR 3025″… . In particular, such motions “should be freely granted absent prejudice or surprise to the opposing party, unless the proposed amendment is devoid of merit or palpably insufficient”… .

The proposed amended complaint alleged that the defendants had (1) engaged in “digging, excavating, grading and altering the soil, past the property line with [the] plaintiffs’ property and abutting [the plaintiffs’] property and wall,” (2) planted bushes, shrubs, and trees, and added significant amounts of mulch on the plaintiffs’ property, near the property line, and along the plaintiffs’ wall, and (3) excessively watered the location where the work was performed. The amended complaint further alleged that the “lateral load and pressure has been increased as a result of the planting of trees, bushes, shrubs and plants and the lack of drainage” so as to damage the plaintiffs’ retaining wall. The complaint alleges that this conduct was negligent, and that it constituted a private nuisance and trespass. Contrary to the defendants’ contention, these amended causes of action were neither palpably insufficient nor patently devoid of merit … , and no unfair prejudice or surprise to the defendants would arise from permitting the amendment … . Chaikin v Karipas, 2018 NY Slip Op 04525, Second Dept 6-20-18

​REAL PROPERTY (PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO REPLEAD WITH AN AMENDED COMPLAINT ALLEGING DEFENDANTS’ PLANTING AND WATERING ON DEFENDANTS’ SIDE OF PLAINTIFFS’ RETAINING WALL CONSTITUTED NEGLIGENCE, TRESPASS AND A PRIVATE NUISANCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO REPLEAD WITH AN AMENDED COMPLAINT ALLEGING DEFENDANTS’ PLANTING AND WATERING ON DEFENDANTS’ SIDE OF PLAINTIFFS’ RETAINING WALL CONSTITUTED NEGLIGENCE, TRESPASS AND A PRIVATE NUISANCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 3025  (PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO REPLEAD WITH AN AMENDED COMPLAINT ALLEGING DEFENDANTS’ PLANTING AND WATERING ON DEFENDANTS’ SIDE OF PLAINTIFFS’ RETAINING WALL CONSTITUTED NEGLIGENCE, TRESPASS AND A PRIVATE NUISANCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/TRESPASS (PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO REPLEAD WITH AN AMENDED COMPLAINT ALLEGING DEFENDANTS’ PLANTING AND WATERING ON DEFENDANTS’ SIDE OF PLAINTIFFS’ RETAINING WALL CONSTITUTED NEGLIGENCE, TRESPASS AND A PRIVATE NUISANCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/NUISANCE  (PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO REPLEAD WITH AN AMENDED COMPLAINT ALLEGING DEFENDANTS’ PLANTING AND WATERING ON DEFENDANTS’ SIDE OF PLAINTIFFS’ RETAINING WALL CONSTITUTED NEGLIGENCE, TRESPASS AND A PRIVATE NUISANCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/RETAINING WALL  (PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO REPLEAD WITH AN AMENDED COMPLAINT ALLEGING DEFENDANTS’ PLANTING AND WATERING ON DEFENDANTS’ SIDE OF PLAINTIFFS’ RETAINING WALL CONSTITUTED NEGLIGENCE, TRESPASS AND A PRIVATE NUISANCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

PRIVATE NUISANCE CAUSE OF ACTION BASED UPON LIGHTS AND NOISE FROM A STADIUM PROPERLY SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined the private nuisance cause of action properly survived summary judgment:

The elements of a cause of action for private nuisance 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” … . The issue whether a defendant’s use of land constitutes a private nuisance generally turns on questions of fact that include the degree of interference and the reasonableness of the use under the circumstances … . Evidence of noise and other disturbances has been found sufficient to preclude an award of summary judgment dismissing a cause of action for private nuisance … .

We conclude that defendant’s own submissions raised issues of fact precluding summary judgment … . Defendant submitted plaintiffs’ deposition testimony, which established that the stadium has lights and a loudspeaker that they find disturbing. When there are events at the stadium, the lights and loudspeaker are used late into the evening, sometimes until 11:00 p.m. The lights shine directly into the home of one of the plaintiffs. In addition, spectators at those events make a disturbing amount of noise, and also stand near plaintiffs’ property lines drinking alcohol and throwing trash onto plaintiffs’ properties. We further conclude, in any event, that plaintiffs raised issues of fact in opposition to the motion… . Plaintiffs submitted the deposition testimony of defendant’s superintendent, who testified that defendant had intended to plant trees along the property lines to mitigate any interference with plaintiffs’ use of the property but had abandoned that plan. The superintendent also acknowledged that he understood why plaintiffs had concerns about defendant’s use of the property. Ranney v Tonawanda City Sch. Dist., 2018 NY Slip Op 03004, Fourth Dept 4-27-18

​REAL PROPERTY (NUISANCE, PRIVATE NUISANCE CAUSE OF ACTION BASED UPON LIGHTS AND NOISE FROM A STADIUM PROPERLY SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FOURTH DEPT))/NUISANCE (PRIVATE NUISANCE CAUSE OF ACTION BASED UPON LIGHTS AND NOISE FROM A STADIUM PROPERLY SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FOURTH DEPT))/STADIUMS  (NUISANCE, PRIVATE NUISANCE CAUSE OF ACTION BASED UPON LIGHTS AND NOISE FROM A STADIUM PROPERLY SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FOURTH 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