Williams v. Hertzwig
| Decision Date | 29 June 1998 |
| Citation | 251 A.D.2d 655,675 N.Y.S.2d 113 |
| Parties | , 1998 N.Y. Slip Op. 6681 Gweneth M. WILLIAMS, et al., Appellants, v. Roald HERTZWIG, et al., Respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Robert J. Marvin, Jr., Pawling, for appellants.
Denton & McLaughlin, P.C., Pawling (Kevin A. Denton, of counsel), for respondents (no brief filed).
Before BRACKEN, J.P., and COPERTINO, McGINITY and LUCIANO, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In an action to permanently enjoin the defendants from maintaining and operating an illegal dog kennel upon their property, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Jiudice, J.), dated October 6, 1997, which denied their motion for a preliminary injunction and vacated the temporary restraining order which was issued on July 15, 1997.
ORDERED that the order is reversed, with costs, the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction is granted, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, to fix the amount of the undertaking to be provided by the plaintiffs (see, CPLR 6312[b] ).
The plaintiffs have owned and resided on real property in the Town of Pawling for over 50 years. In 1995, the defendants purchased the property adjoining the plaintiffs' property and erected and currently maintain a dog kennel with connected outdoor dog runs to allow the dogs they breed to move freely between the kennel building and the outdoor runs. According to the plaintiffs, whenever a person or animal ventures within the sight or hearing of the numerous dogs residing in the kennel, the dogs bark incessantly, which prevents the plaintiffs from enjoying the peaceful and quiet use of their home.
Although the defendants attempted to obtain a special use permit in order to bring the kennel within the zoning requirements of the Town of Pawling, the Town of Pawling Zoning Board of Appeals denied the application. Nevertheless, the defendants continued to operate the illegal facility. As a result, the plaintiffs commenced the instant action, inter alia, for injunctive relief. The Supreme Court denied the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction on the ground that the plaintiffs had failed to establish their standing to enforce the zoning code in a private action with evidence that the value of their real property had been depreciated by the adjoining illegal use. We disagree with the Supreme Court's conclusion, and determine, instead, that the plaintiffs have standing to maintain the action and that they are entitled to a preliminary injunction.
In order to maintain a private action to enjoin a zoning violation, a plaintiff must establish that he or she has standing to do so by demonstrating that special damages were sustained due to the defendant's activities (see, Little Joseph Realty v. Town of Babylon, 41 N.Y.2d 738, 395 N.Y.S.2d 428, 363 N.E.2d 1163). An allegation of close proximity may...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cohen v. Cassm Realty Corp.
...130 (1987) ; Zupa v. Paradise Point Assn., Inc., 22 A.D.3d 843, 843–44, 803 N.Y.S.2d 179 (2d Dep't 2005) ; Williams v. Hertzwig, 251 A.D.2d 655, 656, 675 N.Y.S.2d 113 (2d Dep't 1998). See N.Y. Bus. Corp. Law § 626(c).VI. CASSM REALTY'S BREACHES OF PLAINTIFF'S PROPRIETARY LEASEIn the respect......
-
Glass v. Del Duca
...activities (see Little Joseph Realty v. Town of Babylon, 41 N.Y.2d 738 ; Zupa v. Paradise Point Assn., Inc., 22 A.D.2d 843 ; Williams v. Hertzwig, 251 A.D.2d 655 ). To establish special damages, a plaintiff must show a depreciation in the value of his or her property arising from the forbid......
-
Phair v. Sand Land Corp.
...100 A.D.3d 1271, 1273, 955 N.Y.S.2d 419 ; Zupa v. Paradise Point Assn., Inc., 22 A.D.3d 843, 803 N.Y.S.2d 179 ; Williams v. Hertzwig, 251 A.D.2d 655, 656, 675 N.Y.S.2d 113 ; Futerfas v. Shultis, 209 A.D.2d 761, 762, 618 N.Y.S.2d 127 ; see also Allen Avionics v. Universal Broadcasting Corp.,......