private nuisance claim in Connecticut

2017As the Appellate Court explained in Rickel v. Komaromi , 144 Conn.App. 775 , 73 A.3d 851 (2013), the date on which a nuisance claim accrues depends on whether the nuisance is considered temporary (i.e., continuing) or permanent: "a permanent nuisance claim accrues when injury first occurs or is discovered while a temporary nuisance claim accrues anew upon each injury." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., at 787 , 73 A.3d 851 .

2017As the Appellate Court explained in Rickel v. Komaromi , 144 Conn.App. 775 , 73 A.3d 851 (2013), the date on which a nuisance claim accrues depends on whether the nuisance is considered temporary (i.e., continuing) or permanent: "a permanent nuisance claim accrues when injury first occurs or is discovered while a temporary nuisance claim accrues anew upon each injury." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., at 787 , 73 A.3d 851 .

2010We agree with the defendant that the applicable statute of limitations is § 52-584, and that, applying this statute, the plaintiffs’ private nuisance claim was time barred. 3 A Before addressing the question of whether the plaintiffs’ nuisance claim was time barred, we first must determine which statute of limitations governs that claim. 4 Section 52-584 provides in relevant part: “No action to recover damages for injury to . . . real or personal property, caused by negligence . . . shall be brought but within two years from the date when the injury is first sustained or discovered or in the e

2010We agree with the defendant that the applicable statute of limitations is § 52-584, and that, applying this statute, the plaintiffs’ private nuisance claim was time barred. 3 A Before addressing the question of whether the plaintiffs’ nuisance claim was time barred, we first must determine which statute of limitations governs that claim. 4 Section 52-584 provides in relevant part: “No action to recover damages for injury to . . . real or personal property, caused by negligence . . . shall be brought but within two years from the date when the injury is first sustained or discovered or in the e

2008Berube v. Nagle, 81 Conn. App. 681, 696 , 841 A.2d 724 (2004); see also Pestey v. Cushman, supra, 361 . 6 Because a private nuisance claim does not require proof of possession, the court improperly concluded that the plaintiffs lack of exclusive possession of the property precluded his private nuisance claim.

2008Berube v. Nagle, 81 Conn. App. 681, 696 , 841 A.2d 724 (2004); see also Pestey v. Cushman, supra, 361 . 6 Because a private nuisance claim does not require proof of possession, the court improperly concluded that the plaintiffs lack of exclusive possession of the property precluded his private nuisance claim.

2004If facts provable in the complaint would support a cause of action, the motion to strike must be denied.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Waters v. Autuori, 236 Conn. 820, 825-26 , 676 A.2d 357 (1996); see also Murillo v. Seymour Ambulance Assn., Inc., 264 Conn. 474, 476-77 , 823 A.2d 1202 (2003), quoting Maloney v. Conroy, 208 Conn. 392, 394 , 545 A.2d 1059 (1988): “ ‘For the purpose of ruling upon a motion to strike, the facts alleged in a complaint, though not the legal conclusions it may contain, are deemed to be admitted.’ ” In order to establish a private nuisance c

2004If facts provable in the complaint would support a cause of action, the motion to strike must be denied.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Waters v. Autuori, 236 Conn. 820, 825-26 , 676 A.2d 357 (1996); see also Murillo v. Seymour Ambulance Assn., Inc., 264 Conn. 474, 476-77 , 823 A.2d 1202 (2003), quoting Maloney v. Conroy, 208 Conn. 392, 394 , 545 A.2d 1059 (1988): “ ‘For the purpose of ruling upon a motion to strike, the facts alleged in a complaint, though not the legal conclusions it may contain, are deemed to be admitted.’ ” In order to establish a private nuisance c

2001A public nuisance claim, as opposed to a private nuisance claim, contains the additional element that "the condition or conduct complained of interferes with a right common to the general public." Keeney v. Old Saybrook, 237 Conn. 135 , 163 , 676 A.2d 795 (1996); State v. Tippetts-Abbett-McCarthy-Stratton, 204 Conn. 177 , 183 , 527 A.2d 688 (1987).

2001A public nuisance claim, as opposed to a private nuisance claim, contains the additional element that "the condition or conduct complained of interferes with a right common to the general public." Keeney v. Old Saybrook, 237 Conn. 135 , 163 , 676 A.2d 795 (1996); State v. Tippetts-Abbett-McCarthy-Stratton, 204 Conn. 177 , 183 , 527 A.2d 688 (1987).

2001A public nuisance claim, as opposed to a private nuisance claim, contains the additional element that "the condition or conduct complained of interferes with a right common to the general public." Keeney v. Old Saybrook, 237 Conn. 135 , 163 , 676 A.2d 795 (1996); State v. Tippetts-Abbett-McCarthy-Stratton, 204 Conn. 177 , 183 , 527 A.2d 688 (1987).

2001A public nuisance claim, as opposed to a private nuisance claim, contains the additional element that "the condition or conduct complained of interferes with a right common to the general public." Keeney v. Old Saybrook, 237 Conn. 135 , 163 , 676 A.2d 795 (1996); State v. Tippetts-Abbett-McCarthy-Stratton, 204 Conn. 177 , 183 , 527 A.2d 688 (1987).

1995"The purpose of a motion to strike is to `contest . . . the legal sufficiency of the allegations of any complaint . . . to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.'" Novametrix Medical Systems v. BOC Group, Inc., 224 Conn. 210 , 214-15 .

1994In Nicholson v. Connecticut Half-Way House, 153 Conn. 507 , 218 A.2d 383 (1966), the court held that "[i]t is the duty of every person to make a reasonable use of his own property so as to occasion no unnecessary damage or annoyance to his neighbor." (Emphasis added.) Id., 510 .

1994In Nicholson v. Connecticut Half-Way House, 153 Conn. 507 , 218 A.2d 383 (1966), the court held that "[i]t is the duty of every person to make a reasonable use of his own property so as to occasion no unnecessary damage or annoyance to his neighbor." (Emphasis added.) Id., 510 .

1994A. Nuisance in General Nuisance is the "catch-all of ill-defined rights." (Citations omitted.) Carabetta v. Meriden , 145 Conn. 338 , 339 , 142 A.2d 727 (1958).

1994A. Nuisance in General Nuisance is the "catch-all of ill-defined rights." (Citations omitted.) Carabetta v. Meriden , 145 Conn. 338 , 339 , 142 A.2d 727 (1958).

1994In Nicholson v. Connecticut Half-Way House, 153 Conn. 507 , 218 A.2d 383 (1966), the court held that "[i]t is the duty of every person to make a reasonable use of his own property so as to occasion no unnecessary damage or annoyance to his neighbor." (Emphasis added.) Id., 510 .

1992In fact, plaintiff alleges that the defendants owned, controlled, operated and maintained the parking garage." Stewart v. Federated Department Store, Inc., supra. The Stewart court held that a patron who is injured inside a store cannot maintain a private nuisance claim against the owner because the patron has neither a property interest nor a privilege in the premises.