NUISANCE CLAIM REGARDING TWO-CAR
Plaintiff was the owner of a parcel of real property adjacent to the parcel owned by the defendants upon which the defendants built a two-story structure, the ground floor of a two-car garage and the upper floor of which was an accessory apartment located 25 feet from the plaintiff’s property line. Among the 11 causes of action initiated by the plaintiff, one of them requested a permanent injunction and removal of the building based on an allegedly substantial interference with plaintiff’s use and enjoyment of the property. Defendants argued that plaintiff’s claim for nuisance was unsupported and untimely. This cause of action was based on allegations of unreasonable and excessive notice, offensive and noxious conduct and unsightly and dilapidated structures, none of which was supported by proof or specific instances, times and dates. The court determined that a nuisance claim requires a showing of intentional interference with the right to use or enjoyment of property. In addition, the court noted that the conduct complained of does not usually emanate from a garage. The setback of the garage from the property line has less of an impact on its proximity to the house on plaintiff’s property than the nonconforming setback of the house from its own property line. Plaintiff presented no proof that there had been any depreciation in the value of his property over the past four years. Plaintiffs also failed to indicate that they were prohibited from using or enjoying their property or that the defendants exercised unreasonable control over their property. In addition, the defendant’s fence did not interfere with the plaintiff’s right to light or air and such allegations did not form a sufficient basis for a private nuisance claim. The court did not believe there was any merit to the plaintiff’s arguments that the mere presence on the adjoining property of unsightly dumpsters, an abandoned icebox, automobile parts, or a “hideous rampart of dirt” without more, would give rise to a valid cause of action on the theory of private nuisance. “Things merely disagreeable, however, which simply displease the eye… no matter how irritating or unpleasant, are not nuisances.” Furthermore, the court did not find merit to the plaintiff’s argument that a cause of action alleging private nuisance may be asserted merely because the presence of certain structures on their neighbors’ property might render their own property less conspicuous from the roadway. As a result, these causes of action were dismissed. Downing v. Charos, Supreme Court, Suffolk County (NYLJ 1/8/2008).
Visit our website at CFGNY.com for copies of recent articles as well as other areas of interest to the real estate community.
|
||||