Anderson v. Elliott - 2005 NY Slip Op 9264, 24 A.D.3d 400, 807 N.Y.S.2d 101 (App. Div. 2nd Dept.)

Rule:

To recover damages based on the tort of private nuisance, a plaintiff must establish an interference with the use or enjoyment of land, substantial in nature, intentional or negligent in origin, unreasonable in character, and caused by the defendants' conduct. 

Facts:

The defendant 63 Willow Lane Corp. purchased a residential property at 63 Willow Lane for the purpose of filming a television program. Willow Lane is located in the plaintiffs' residential neighborhood in the Town of Clinton, Dutchess County. The Town's zoning laws prohibit commercial use of the property. The filming occurred on the property over the course of several months on four separate occasions. After each of the first two filmings, the Town Zoning Enforcement Officer informed Gordon Elliott about the zoning violations and ordered him to cease and desist. The plaintiffs, as taxpayers and owners of property on Willow Lane, brought an action alleging a violation of the Town's zoning laws, to recover damages for private nuisance, and seeking punitive damages. They claimed that the presence of an excessive number of cars, a dumpster, mattresses, and flood lights diminished the values of their properties and their use and enjoyment of the properties. Shortly after the plaintiffs commenced the action, the defendants filmed on one additional occasion. Subsequently, the defendants ceased their filming, removed all of their equipment and materials, and listed the property for sale. The Supreme Court, Dutchess County (New York) granted a motion to dismiss, after it was converted into a summary judgment motion under N.Y. C.P.L.R. 3211(c), filed by defendants. Plaintiffs appealed.

Issue:

Was the claim to recover damages for private nuisance by the taxpayers and owners of property on Willow Lane against the defendants meritorious?

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The court affirmed and held that plaintiffs failed to establish a cause of action for private nuisance because the alleged disturbance caused by the filming on several occasions did not, as a matter of law, rise to the level of substantial interference with plaintiffs' use and enjoyment of their properties. The claim for punitive damages was also properly dismissed because no allegations were made that defendants' actions were done with a malicious intent to injure plaintiffs. Because the proposed amendments did not add any significant information, the court held that plaintiffs' cross-motion for leave to serve an amended complaint was properly denied.