Delvecchio v. Collins

Decision Date26 December 2019
Docket Number528281
Parties Lee DELVECCHIO, Respondent, v. Jeffrey M. COLLINS, Appellant.
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Maynard, O'Connor, Smith & Catalinotto, LLP, Albany (Justin W. Gray of counsel), for appellant.

Philip A. Wellner, Hillsdale, for respondent.

Before: Clark, J.P., Mulvey, Devine and Pritzker, JJ.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Pritzker, J. Plaintiff and defendant are neighboring landowners in the Town of Shandaken, Ulster County. In 2000, plaintiff commenced construction on his home, which was completed in 2003. Meanwhile, in 2001, defendant was granted site plan approval and issued a use variance to operate a stone and landscaping supply business – the Jeff Collins Stone & Landscaping Supply (hereinafter Collins Stone) – on his approximately three-acre property, which he continues to operate. Plaintiff alleges that in 2005, defendant expanded the operations of Collins Stone, which caused excessive dust and noise that has impacted his use and enjoyment of his property. In 2015, plaintiff commenced this action alleging two causes of action. The first alleges private nuisance, seeking damages, a permanent injunction and punitive damages. The second cause of action alleges a violation of the Zoning Law of the Town of Shandaken based upon defendant's alleged expansion of Collins Stone beyond the area permitted by the use variance. Following joinder of issue, defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.1 Ultimately, Supreme Court denied the motion in its entirety. Defendant appeals.

Turning to the first cause of action, "[a] private nuisance claim may be established by proof of intentional action or inaction that substantially and unreasonably interferes with other people's use and enjoyment of [their] property" ( Pilatich v. Town of New Baltimore , 170 A.D.3d 1463, 1464, 97 N.Y.S.3d 332 [2019] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; accord Schillaci v. Sarris , 122 A.D.3d 1085, 1087, 997 N.Y.S.2d 504 [2014] ). Although nuisance is often discussed in terms of intentional conduct, "such a claim [is] actionable upon proof that [the] defendant's invasion was either intentional, negligent or reckless, or otherwise involved abnormally dangerous activities" ( 517 Union St. Assoc. LLC v. Town Homes of Union Sq. LLC , 156 A.D.3d 1187, 1191, 68 N.Y.S.3d 173 [2017] ).

Defendant contends that Supreme Court erred in failing to dismiss the first cause of action because it does not state a cause of action for private nuisance. In the complaint, plaintiff alleges that defendant intentionally expanded the operations of Collins Stone, which has resulted in an increase in the amount of dust and noise created by the operation. Plaintiff also alleges that this has impacted his use and enjoyment of his property because he must keep his windows closed at all times to reduce the amount of noise and dust that enters his home. He alleges that it has also limited the amount of time that he can spend outside. As a result of these operations, plaintiff alleges that his property value has been substantially decreased and he has increased property maintenance costs. Accepting as true the foregoing allegations, and according plaintiff all reasonable inferences, the factual allegations made by plaintiff state a cause of action for private nuisance (see City of Albany v. Normanskill Cr., LLC , 165 A.D.3d 1437, 1439, 86 N.Y.S.3d 635 [2018] ). Nor are we persuaded that the first cause of action should be dismissed because, even if the allegations are taken as true, the conduct amounts to a public rather than a private nuisance. Although plaintiff alleges that the properties in a one-mile radius of Collins Stone are impacted by the dust and noise, this does not create a claim for public nuisance, because this does not impact a considerable number of persons (see City of New York v. Smokes–Spirits.Com, Inc. , 12 N.Y.3d 616, 626–627, 883 N.Y.S.2d 772, 911 N.E.2d 834 [2009] ; Haire v. Bonelli , 57 A.D.3d 1354, 1358, 870 N.Y.S.2d 591 [2008] ). Therefore, plaintiff properly pleaded a claim for private nuisance.

Defendant also asserts that, even if the cause of action for private nuisance is properly pleaded, said claim should have been dismissed because his operation of Collins Stone does not constitute a private nuisance as a matter of law. In general, "[t]he issue of whether a use constitutes a private nuisance ordinarily turns on questions of fact" ( Pilatich v. Town of New Baltimore , 133 A.D.3d 1143, 1145, 20 N.Y.S.3d 695 [2015] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted] ). "The elements of a private nuisance cause of action are an interference (1) 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" ( Broxmeyer v. United Capital Corp. , 79 A.D.3d 780, 782, 914 N.Y.S.2d 181 [2010] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted] ). "Except 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" ( id. at 782–783, 914 N.Y.S.2d 181 [internal quotation marks, brackets and citation omitted] ). Here, defendant's evidentiary submissions failed to demonstrate prima facie entitlement to summary judgment. Specifically, defendant's proof reveals that Collins Stone receives as many as 75 deliveries and pick-ups per month, which defendant admits creates noise and dust. Defendant also admitted that he ran a stone cutter two to three times a week and that he needed to wear ear protection while running it. The proof also establishes that defendant has attempted to remedy this in various ways, although he admits that it is impossible to eliminate the dust and noise completely. Thus, at the very least, defendant's actions creating the noise and dust may have been negligent as he either knew or should have known that his operations could impact neighboring landowners. Accordingly, there is a material question of fact as to whether defendant knew or should have known that these deliveries could unreasonably interfere with plaintiff's use and enjoyment of his property, and, therefore, Supreme Court did not err in denying the motion for summary judgment dismissing this cause of action (see Pilatich v. Town of New Baltimore , 133 A.D.3d at 1145, 20 N.Y.S.3d 695 ; Schillaci v. Sarris , 122 A.D.3d at 1088, 997 N.Y.S.2d 504 ).

Defendant next contends that Supreme Court erred in failing to dismiss plaintiff's claim for punitive damages relative to the first cause of action. We agree. Punitive damages are limited to exceptional cases where the defendant has displayed malice and, therefore, "an unmotivated, unintentional or even...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • State v. Konikov, 528735
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 9 April 2020
    ...a CPLR 3212 motion for summary judgment that was based in part upon the CPLR 3211(a) grounds asserted in the answer" (DelVecchio v. Collins , 178 A.D.3d 1336, 1336 n, 116 N.Y.S.3d 414 [2019] [internal quotation marks, brackets and citations omitted] ).2 Defendant did not waive his challenge......
  • WFE Ventures, Inc. v. GBD Lake Placid, LLC
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 12 August 2021
    ...166 A.D.3d 1104, 1104–1105, 87 N.Y.S.3d 681 [2018] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see DelVecchio v. Collins, 178 A.D.3d 1336, 1336–1337, 116 N.Y.S.3d 414 [2019] ). "[S]uch a claim [is] actionable upon proof that [the] defendant['s] invasion was either intentional, neglige......
  • Gagnon v. Vill. of Cooperstown
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 3 December 2020
    ...their motion was a CPLR 3212 motion for summary judgment, despite being based in part upon CPLR 3211(a) grounds (see DelVecchio v. Collins, 178 A.D.3d 1336, 1336 n., 116 N.Y.S.3d 414 [2019] ).2 Plaintiff has not contested defendants' argument in this regard. Instead, plaintiff asserts that ......
  • Johnson v. Collyer
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 25 February 2021
    ...751 n. 1, 122 N.Y.S.3d 719 [2020], lv denied 39 N.Y.3d 906, 140 N.Y.S.3d 186, 163 N.E.3d 1103 [Feb. 11, 2021]; DelVecchio v. Collins, 178 A.D.3d 1336, 1336 n., 116 N.Y.S.3d 414 [2019]...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT