Also known as: annoyance · annoyances · annoying · nuisance
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A historical legal term for an annoyance or nuisance. It denotes a nontrespassory invasion of another's interest in the private use and enjoyment of land.
Alice Atkins owns a home next to Atlas Ventures' new manufacturing plant. The plant releases fumes and noise that prevent Alice from using her backyard for gardening or entertaining guests. Alice sues for private nuisance based on the substantial interference with her land enjoyment.
Arthur Abrams seeks broad discovery from Alliance Holdings in a contract dispute. Alliance moves for a protective order, certifying good-faith efforts to narrow the requests and arguing that compliance would impose annoyance and undue expense on its employees.
Amelia Amari buys coastal property for development. A new regulation bars all construction, leaving the land without economically beneficial use. Amelia claims a per se taking, but the state defends by showing the prohibited uses were already barred as common-law nuisances at acquisition.
Alexandra Armstrong operates a farm adjacent to Audrey Ashton's residence. Persistent odors from the farm reduce the home's market value and cause ongoing discomfort to Audrey as occupier. Audrey seeks damages measured by the difference in land value plus compensation for the annoyance.
Penn Central Transportation Co. owns Grand Central Terminal. New York City's landmark law prevents construction of an office tower above the station. The company alleges the restriction interferes with reasonable investment-backed expectations in its property use.
In 1965 New York City enacted the Landmarks Preservation Law, which created an eleven-member Landmarks Preservation Commission and authorized it to designate buildings at least thirty years old that possess special historical or aesthetic interest. The law required owners of designated landmarks to obtain Commission approval before altering exterior architectural features and imposed an affirmative duty to keep those features in good repair. In August 1967 the Commission designated Grand Central Terminal a landmark and the city tax block it occupies a landmark site; the Board of Estimate confirmed the designation the following month. Penn Central Transportation Co. and its affiliates owned the Terminal, an eight-story Beaux-Arts structure completed in 1913 that served as the main station for the New York Central and Harlem lines. On January 22, 1968, Penn Central entered a fifty-year renewable lease with UGP Properties, Inc., under which UGP agreed to construct a multistory office building cantilevered above the Terminal and to pay Penn Central at least three million dollars annually after construction. Penn Central and UGP submitted two plans prepared by architect Marcel Breuer: Breuer I, a fifty-five-story tower resting on the Terminal roof, and Breuer II Revised, a fifty-three-story building that would have removed part of the 42d Street facade. After four days of hearings at which over 80 witnesses testified, the Commission denied this application as to both proposals. Penn Central filed suit in New York Supreme Court, Trial Term, seeking a declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, and damages for a temporary taking. The trial court granted the injunctive and declaratory relief. The Appellate Division reversed, holding that Penn Central had failed to prove deprivation of all reasonable beneficial use. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding that the Terminal could still earn a reasonable return and that transferable development rights provided significant compensation. The Supreme Court noted probable jurisdiction.
View caseAtlantic Cement Co. operates a plant that emits dust harming nearby homeowners including the Boomers. The homeowners prove substantial interference with use and enjoyment of their land. The court weighs permanent damages against an injunction that would close the plant.
The defendant Atlantic Cement Company operates a large cement plant near Albany. Neighboring land owners brought actions for injunction and damages by alleging injury to property from dirt, smoke and vibration emanating from the plant. A nuisance has been found after trial, temporary damages have been allowed; but an injunction has been denied. The court at Special Term also found the amount of permanent damage attributable to each plaintiff. The total of permanent damages to all plaintiffs thus found was $185,000. Respondent’s investment in the plant is in excess of $45,000,000. There are over 300 people employed there. The total damage to plaintiffs’ properties is, however, relatively small in comparison with the value of defendant’s operation and with the consequences of the injunction which plaintiffs seek. The orders at Special Term and at the Appellate Division denied the injunction. The plant commenced production in 1962.
View caseIt is the Law French predecessor of the word nuisance and refers to a nontrespassory invasion of another's interest in the private use and enjoyment of land.
Supporting sources
No. The definition expressly covers nontrespassory invasions that interfere with use and enjoyment, such as odors, noise, or fumes.
Supporting sources
Only those who hold property rights or privileges in the affected land, including possessors, may recover under the governing rule.
Supporting sources
…that the government would seem to be singling out a particular property owner. Hadacheck, supra , at 413. The nuisance exception to the taking guarantee is not coterminous with the police power itself. The question is whether the forbidden use is dangerous to the safety, health, or welfare of others. Thus,…