public nuisance claim in New York

2021Gourmet Foods v Finlandia Ctr. , 96 NY2d 280, 292 [2001]; see Hoover v Durkee , 212 AD2d 839, 840 [1995]; Graceland Corp. v Consolidated Laundries Corp. , 7 AD2d 89, 91 [1958], affd 6 NY2d 900 [1959]).

2017(See generally Graceland Corp. v Consolidated Laundries Corp., 7 AD2d 89, 93 [1st Dept 1958], affd without op 6 NY2d 900 [1959].) Contrary to defendants’ arguments, the City has not, and cannot, join in the tenant plaintiffs’ private nuisance claims, just as the tenant plaintiffs have not joined in the City’s public nuisance claims.

2021Gourmet Foods v Finlandia Ctr. , 96 NY2d at 294 ) —plaintiffs here have not asserted an injury that is different in kind from the relevant community at large, which, in our view, consists of the other homeowners and renters impacted by the landfill's odors ( see Wheeler v Lebanon Valley Auto Racing Corp. , 303 AD2d at 793-794 ; see also Concerned Citizens of Cedar Hgts.-Woodchuck Hill Rd. v DeWitt Fish & Game Club , 302 AD2d 938, 939 [2003] [residents of property within close proximity of a shooting range did not have standing to bring a public nuisance claim related to the noise associated th

2014(See Williams II, 103 AD3d at 1191 .) Similar to Williams, this court finds two applicable PLCAA exceptions thereby permitting the entire complaint to proceed through litigation, without the need for a claim-by-claim PLCAA analysis.

2014(See Williams II, 103 AD3d at 1191 .) Nevertheless, the sale in this case involved two assault-style weapons in an illegal sale that had disastrous direct consequences for plaintiffs above and beyond those suffered by the community at large.

2003Corp., 337 Ill App 3d 1, 785 NE2d 16 (App Ct, 1st Dist 2002), lv allowed 203 Ill 2d 544, 788 NE2d 727 (2003) (public nuisance cause of action stated where complaint alleged that defendants’ collective marketing practices unreasonably facilitated unlawful possession and use of firearms); Young v Bryco Arms, 327 Ill App 3d 948, 765 NE2d 1 (App Ct, 1st Dist 2001), lv allowed 201 Ill 2d 619, 786 NE2d 202 (2002) (public nuisance law could be applied to manufacturers and distributors of handguns used by teenage gang members to kill victims though handguns themselves were nondefective, legal products

2003Corp., 337 Ill App 3d 1, 785 NE2d 16 (App Ct, 1st Dist 2002), lv allowed 203 Ill 2d 544, 788 NE2d 727 (2003) (public nuisance cause of action stated where complaint alleged that defendants’ collective marketing practices unreasonably facilitated unlawful possession and use of firearms); Young v Bryco Arms, 327 Ill App 3d 948, 765 NE2d 1 (App Ct, 1st Dist 2001), lv allowed 201 Ill 2d 619, 786 NE2d 202 (2002) (public nuisance law could be applied to manufacturers and distributors of handguns used by teenage gang members to kill victims though handguns themselves were nondefective, legal products

2001The court further rejected recovery for strict liability, and dismissed both the public nuisance claim (because plaintiff was unable to show special damages) and the private nuisance claim (because plaintiff could not show that the harm threatened only one person or relatively few). *288 The Appellate Division affirmed dismissal of the Goldberg Weprin complaint, concluding that, absent property damage, the connection between defendants’ activities and the economic losses of the purported class of plaintiffs was “too tenuous and remote to permit recovery on any tort theory” ( 275 AD2d 614 ).

2000Co. v Curb Stock & Bond Mkt. ( 117 Misc 82 ), the court allowed a public nuisance claim by numerous owners of valuable lands and buildings on Broad Street, between Exchange Place and Beaver Street, a 465-foot-long block, whose tenants complained of obstructions caused by the defendant’s operation of a stock exchange in the street, thereby isolating the properties from other sections of the financial district, making it more difficult to rent the properties and depressing the rental value.

2000Chocolatiere v 540 Acquisition Co. ( 272 AD2d 23 [decided herewith]), as applied to the individual plaintiff in this case.

2000It also found the negligence claim insufficient because: (1) the building owner did not owe plaintiff a duty of care; (2) the connection between the alleged negligence and the claimant’s damages was too tenuous to permit recovery; and (3) the facts did not present the type of special circumstances warranting an exception to the “economic loss rule.” With respect to the negligence claim, landowners and business proprietors have a duty to maintain their properties in a reasonably safe condition (Kush v City of Buffalo, 59 NY2d 26 ; Basso v Miller, 40 NY2d 233 ).

2000It also found the negligence claim insufficient because: (1) the building owner did not owe plaintiff a duty of care; (2) the connection between the alleged negligence and the claimant’s damages was too tenuous to permit recovery; and (3) the facts did not present the type of special circumstances warranting an exception to the “economic loss rule.” With respect to the negligence claim, landowners and business proprietors have a duty to maintain their properties in a reasonably safe condition (Kush v City of Buffalo, 59 NY2d 26 ; Basso v Miller, 40 NY2d 233 ).

1987(Burns Jackson Miller Summit & Spitzer v Lindner, supra; Wakeman v Wilbur, 147 NY 657 [1895]; Queens County Business Alliance v New York Racing Assn., 98 AD2d 743 [1983]; Copart Indus. v Consolidated Edison Co., supra.) Assuming, arguendo, that plaintiffs have established a public nuisance claim, which they have not, the next question to consider is whether they have standing to bring this cause of action, i.e., whether they have suffered special damages.

1987(Burns Jackson Miller Summit & Spitzer v Lindner, supra; Wakeman v Wilbur, 147 NY 657 [1895]; Queens County Business Alliance v New York Racing Assn., 98 AD2d 743 [1983]; Copart Indus. v Consolidated Edison Co., supra.) Assuming, arguendo, that plaintiffs have established a public nuisance claim, which they have not, the next question to consider is whether they have standing to bring this cause of action, i.e., whether they have suffered special damages.

1936(People v. Vandewater, 250 N. Y. 83 .) The Livingston and McKelvey Cases (supra) were approved and followed by the Appellate Division, Second Department, in People ex rel.

1936In People v. Menzel ( 148 Misc. 916 ), which was an appeal to the County Court of Broome county from a conviction for violation of section 1530 of the Penal Law, the information, as in the instant case, charged that the defendant maintained a public nuisance in violation of section 1530 of the Penal Law, in that he kept a place where he sold alcohol in violation of law and that the sources of deponent’s information and the grounds for his belief were statements made by three named persons.

1931The question here involved is the same as that presented in People v. Monahan ( 233 App. Div. 16 ), argued at the same time with the present appeal and decided herewith.