Private Nuisance in New York

What Is Private Nuisance?

Background

“It is in the public interest that each landowner be free to lawfully use his or her property to the fullest possible extent consistent with the right of others to use their own property free from unreasonable interference.” (Galchus v. Vichinsky, 2007 N.Y. Slip Op. 32420, 3 [N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2007] citing 2 NY PJI2d 3:16 [2007].) “Where there is an unreasonable use of the land, to the material injury of a neighbor's right to use and enjoy his or her land, a party may sue for the tort of private nuisance.” (Galchus, id.)

“To constitute a nuisance the use of property must interfere with a person's interest in the use and enjoyment of land.” (Domen Holding Co. v. Aranovich (2003) 1 N.Y.3d 117, 123 citing Restatement [Second] of Torts § 821D; see also Copart Indus. v. Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y. (1977) 41 N.Y.2d 564, 568.)

General Information for Complaints and Motions

The elements of private nuisance are:

an interference, substantial in nature,
intentional in origin,
unreasonable in character,
with plaintiff's right to use and enjoy land,
caused by defendant's conduct.

(Oxman v. 1100 Park Ave. Coop. Corp. (2010) 30 Misc. 3d 1209 citing Copart Industries, Inc. v. Consolidated Edison Co. (1977) 41 N.Y.2d 564.)

Burden of Proof

“The burden is on plaintiff to establish the elements of the tort for private nuisance, and state the relevant facts with sufficient particularity to meet the burden for this cause of action.” (Oxman v. 1100 Park Ave. Coop. Corp. (2010) 30 Misc. 3d 1209.)

The Court’s Decision

Whether or not a complained of nuisance is in fact “a recurring or continuing pattern of objectionable conduct threatening the comfort and safety of others” is a question of fact and, therefore, cannot be disposed of in a summary process. (Domen Holding Co. v. Aranovich (2003) 1 N.Y.3d 117, 125.)

“The term ‘use and enjoyment’ encompasses the pleasure and comfort derived from the occupancy of land and the freedom from annoyance.” (Domen Holding Co., supra, id., citing Restatement [Second] of Torts § 821D, Comment b; see also Nussbaum v. Lacopo (1970) 27 N.Y.2d 311, 315.)

“However, not every annoyance will constitute a nuisance.” (See 2 Dolan, Rasch's Landlord and Tenant-Summary Proceedings § 30:60, at 465 [4th ed].) "Nuisance imports a continuous invasion of rights — ‘a pattern of continuity or recurrence of objectionable conduct.’” (Frank v. Park Summit Realty Corp. (1991) 175 A.D.2d 33, 34; Domen Holding Co. v. Aranovich (2003) 1 N.Y.3d 117, 124.)

Documents for Private Nuisance in New York

Sort By

91 Central Park West Corporation, The Board Of Directors Of The 91 Central Park West Corporation, Jeanne Martowski, Rubin Caraballo v. Derek Terenzio document preview

SUMMONS + COMPLAINT *Corrected*

42 pages

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/29/2024 09:05 AM INDEX NO. 153967/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/30/2024 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK 91 CENTRAL PARK WEST CORPORATION, Index No. ___________/2024 THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE 91 CENTRAL PARK WEST CORPORATIO…

Case Name 91 Central Park West Corporation, The Board Of Directors Of The 91 Central…