Case Name: Lydecker et al. v. Eells
Court: New York Supreme Court General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1888-12-13
Citations: 3 N.Y.S. 323
Docket Number: 
Parties: Lydecker et al. v. Eells.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 3
Pages: 323–324

Head Matter:
Lydecker et al. v. Eells.
(Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department.
December 13, 1888.)
Nuisance—Abatement—Costs—Who is Liable.
Under Laws N. Y. 1885, c. 270, §§ 3,4, requiring an order of the board of health for the removal of a special nuisance to be served on any occupant and the owner of the premises where the nuisance exists, and, in case of disobedience, authorizing the removal of the nuisance, and making the expense thereof a charge on the occupant, an order directed to one having an interest in premises whereon a nuisance exists, for its removal, and served on his agent, who was in the occupancy of the premises, does not require the agent to remove the nuisance.
Appeal from Rockland county court.
Action by Isaac S. Lydecker and others, as members of the board of health of the village of Nyack, against Richard P. Bells and Richard De Contillon, to abate an alleged nuisance on the premises of the latter. Judgment was rendered in a justice’s court against both defendants, but only affirmed in the county court as to the defendant Bells, who takes this appeal.
Argued before Barnard, P. J., and Dykman and Pratt, JJ.
M. M. Dickinson, for appellant. A. S. Tompkins, for respondents.

Opinion:
Barnard, P. J.
The plaintiffs compose the board of health of Nyack, under chapter 270, Laws 1885. A nuisance was found to exist upon certain premises in that village. The premises were owned by the Mutual Life Insurance Company of New York. One De Contillon had agreed to purchase, and had possession under the agreement, and Bells, the defendant, was an occupant of the property, and the agent of De Contillon. The nuisance was in an offensive and dangerous privy vault. By subdivision 6, § 3, of the act creating boards of health, such boards are authorized to make special orders for the suppression and removal of special nuisances. In these cases, copies of the orders were required to be served upon "any occupant or occupants and the owner or owners of any premises whereon any such nuisance" shall exist, "or to post the same in some conspicuous place on such premises. " In ease of a non-compliance "with any order or regulation which shall have been served or posted as provided in subdivision 6 of section 3 of this act, the said board, or its servants or employes, may lawfully enter upon any premises to which such order or regulation relates, and suppress or remove the nuisance; and the expense thereof shall be a charge upon the occupant, or any or all of the occupants, of said premises, or upon the person or persons who have caused or maintained the nuisance, or other matter of the description aforesaid, and may be sued for and recovered, with costs, by said board, in any court having jurisdiction." It is manifest from these two provisions that the board were to decree a nuisance or other matter detrimental to health, and to serve a copy of the order on occupants and owners, or to post the order on the premises. It is a disobedience of this order which gives the right of action for the cost of a removal of the nuisance by the board. It is barely possible to infer the formal passage of a resolution to suppress this nuisance. It was reported a nuisance, and ordered suppressed. The only order issued was directed to De Contillon, requiring him to remove the nuisance within 15 days. This was not served upon him, but upon Bells, the agent. The agent was bound to do nothing under the order, and no occupant of the premises was mentioned,, either as an individual or as a class. The legislature intended either occupant or owner or person who maintained a nuisance, who failed to obey the order to suppress, to be liable to an action for disobedience to the order. Under the general words giving action against these classes, no more was intended than . to give such action to persons who are disobedient to orders made by the board.. Particular names and particular acts are required when boards of health wish to sue for the expenses of doing the required act in case of disobedience. The-judgment should be reversed, with costs. All concur.