Duffy v. Baldwin

Decision Date14 May 2020
Docket Number528350
Citation183 A.D.3d 1053,124 N.Y.S.3d 110
Parties Christine DUFFY et al., Appellants, v. Kellie BALDWIN et al., Respondents.
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

William J. Better, PC, Kinderhook (Joseph D. Clyne of counsel), for appellants.

Wellner and Associates PLLC, Hillsdale (Phillip A. Wellner of counsel), for respondents.

Before: Garry, P.J., Clark, Aarons, Pritzker and Reynolds Fitzgerald, JJ.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Reynolds Fitzgerald, J.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court(Melkonian, J.), entered November 1, 2018 in Albany County, which granted defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint.

Plaintiffs and defendants owned adjoining parcels of property in the Town of Guilderland, Albany County.In 2015, defendants excavated the front 20 feet of their front lawn, paved it and constructed a brick retaining wall, creating a parking area for three to four vehicles.Thereafter, defendants parked vehicles in this area, as well as their driveway.Plaintiffs contend that this created a safety hazard, as their line of sight was significantly blocked when they exited their driveway onto the street and into traffic.In 2018, plaintiffs commenced this action alleging causes of action in public and private nuisance, as well as seeking a permanent injunction.Defendants filed a pre-answer motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action (seeCPLR 3211[a][7] ).Supreme Court granted defendants' motion and dismissed the complaint, finding that plaintiffs' allegations were wholly speculative.Plaintiffs appeal.

At the outset it must be noted that, approximately two months after the notice of appeal was filed, defendants transferred their property to a third party.Defendants contend that this transfer renders the appeal moot.We disagree.Plaintiffs are seeking damages for both psychological injury and reduction in the fair market value of their home as a result of the alleged nuisance created by defendants.As such, defendants' sale of the property may limit the damages available to plaintiffs, but it does not mandate dismissal of the complaint (seeCPLR 1018;Schillaci v. Sarris,122 A.D.3d 1085, 1088, 997 N.Y.S.2d 504[2014] ).However, as to the request for a permanent injunction, as plaintiffs' acknowledge, the injunctive relief can no longer be obtained from defendants as there are no continuing actions by defendants.As such, this claim is moot.

"When assessing a pre-answer motion for failure to state a cause of action, we accept allegations in the complaint as true and accord the plaintiff[s] every favorable inference"( Mid–Hudson Val. Fed. Credit Union v. Quartararo & Lois PLLC,155 A.D.3d 1218, 1219, 64 N.Y.S.3d 389[2017][citations omitted], affd31 N.Y.3d 1090, 78 N.Y.S.3d 703, 103 N.E.3d 774[2018];seeDavis v. Boeheim,24 N.Y.3d 262, 268, 998 N.Y.S.2d 131, 22 N.E.3d 999[2014];Radiation Oncology Servs. of Cent. N. Y., P.C. v. Our Lady of Lourdes Mem. Hosp., Inc.,148 A.D.3d 1418, 1419, 49 N.Y.S.3d 792[2017] ).Plaintiffs initially argue that Supreme Court erred in dismissing their cause of action for private nuisance."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"( DelVecchio v. Collins,178 A.D.3d 1336, 1336, 116 N.Y.S.3d 414[2019][internal quotation marks, brackets and citations omitted] ).

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(seeLandon v. Kroll Lab. Specialists, Inc.,22 N.Y.3d 1, 6, 977 N.Y.S.2d 676, 999 N.E.2d 1121[2013];Tomhannock, LLC v. Roustabout Resources, LLC,115 A.D.3d 1074, 1076, 982 N.Y.S.2d 589[2014];Stone Ridge Country Props. Corp. v. Mohonk Oil Co., Inc.,84 A.D.3d 1556, 1557, 923 N.Y.S.2d 282[2011] ).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"( Alaimo v. Town of Fort Ann,63 A.D.3d 1481, 1482, 883 N.Y.S.2d 321[2009][internal quotation marks, brackets and citations omitted];seeMaddicks v. Big City Props., LLC,34 N.Y.3d 116, 123, 114 N.Y.S.3d 1, 137 N.E.3d 456[2019] ).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.

We reach a different conclusion with respect to plaintiffs' cause of action for public nuisance.A public nuisance consists of "conduct or omissions which offend, interfere with or cause damage to the public in the exercise of rights common to all, in a manner such as to offend public morals, interfere with use by the public of a public place or endanger or injure the property, health, safety or comfort of a considerable number of persons"(City of New York v. Smokes–Spirits. Com, Inc.,12...

To continue reading

Request your trial

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions

  • AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions

  • AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions

  • AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions

  • AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions

  • AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions

  • AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

vLex
7 cases
  • Davies v. S.A. Dunn & Co.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • October 21, 2021
    ...Ave. Gourmet Foods v. Findlandia Ctr., 96 N.Y.2d 280, 292, 727 N.Y.S.2d 49, 750 N.E.2d 1097 [2001] ; see Duffy v. Baldwin, 183 A.D.3d 1053, 1054–1055, 124 N.Y.S.3d 110 [2020] ). A public nuisance is "an offense against the [s]tate and is [generally] subject to abatement or prosecution on ap......
  • Davies v. S.A. Dunn & Co.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court
    • October 21, 2021
    ...of a considerable number of persons" (532 Madison Ave. Gourmet Foods v Findlandia Ctr., 96 N.Y.2d 280, 292 [2001]; see Duffy v Baldwin, 183 A.D.3d 1053, 1054-1055 [2020]). public nuisance is "an offense against the [s]tate and is [generally] subject to abatement or prosecution on applicatio......
  • Hilgreen v. Pollard Excavating, Inc.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • April 1, 2021
    ...of every favorable inference in determining whether the alleged facts fit within a cognizable legal theory (see Duffy v. Baldwin, 183 A.D.3d 1053, 1054, 124 N.Y.S.3d 110 [2020] ). As relevant here, a claim predicated on mutual mistake must be pleaded with the requisite particularity, meanin......
  • Johnson v. Bruen
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • October 8, 2020
    ...1282, 1283, 52 N.Y.S.3d 538 [2017] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see CPLR 3211[a][7] ; Duffy v. Baldwin, 183 A.D.3d 1053, 1054, 124 N.Y.S.3d 110 [2020] ; Szydlowski v. Town of Bethlehem, 162 A.D.3d 1188, 1189, 78 N.Y.S.3d 454 [2018] ). "Although this is a liberal standar......
  • 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