Puritan Holding Co. v. Holloschitz

Supreme Court of New York · 1975 · Property

PropertyNuisancePrivate nuisanceprivate nuisanceabandoned buildingvacant propertyproperty depreciationactual damages

Facts

Plaintiff owned a recently renovated small apartment building on West 93rd Street in Manhattan, almost directly across from defendant's building. Defendant's building had been abandoned, had deteriorated, become unsightly, and been taken over by derelicts. Plaintiff's proof showed that the building's condition caused deterioration in values on the block, and a real estate expert testified that plaintiff's property had depreciated by $30,000 to $35,000 and that plaintiff could not obtain a mortgage because of defendant's building. The area was in the West Side Urban Renewal area, where owners were trying to maintain and upgrade housing standards.

Issue

Does an owner's failure to supervise an abandoned building, allowing it to deteriorate and remain unsecured, constitute the maintenance of a private nuisance to a nearby property owner? If so, may the nearby owner recover damages measured by the diminution in market value of its property?

Rule

Nuisance restricts an owner's right to use property as he pleases and applies to unreasonable, unwarrantable, or unlawful use of one's property that produces material annoyance, inconvenience, discomfort, or hurt such that damage is presumed. Whether a condition is a nuisance depends on the location, surroundings, and other circumstances, and a person who suffers actual damages, direct or consequential, from a nuisance may maintain an action for that particular injury. When nuisance is proved, damages may be measured by the difference between the market value of the injured property before and after the nuisance.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Nora Feld owns a renovated four-unit building in Brooklyn, New York. Two doors down, Eli Vance has left his townhouse vacant for eighteen months; the windows are broken, squatters regularly enter, and the structure has become visibly dilapidated. A real-estate appraiser testifies that Nora’s building lost $40,000 in market value because of Eli’s property, and local redevelopment on the block had been increasing values before the vacancy.

If Nora sues Eli for private nuisance, which is the strongest basis for recovery under the governing rule?

Explanation. The rule is that nuisance includes an unreasonable, unwarrantable, or unlawful use of one’s property that materially interferes with nearby property interests, and whether a condition is a nuisance depends on location, surroundings, and other circumstances. Failure to supervise an abandoned building can qualify when it causes actual harm such as proven diminution in the neighbor’s market value. The case does not make every abandoned building a nuisance, does not require intent to harm, and does not limit nuisance to physical invasions.