Opinion ID: 775766
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: New York Law Claims of Public Nuisance and Trespass

Text: 39 As an alternative ground for injunctive relief, the District Court found that the defendants violated New York state public nuisance and trespass law. Neither of these provide grounds for enjoining Warren. 40 Pursuant to New York law, a public nuisance `consists of conduct... which [offends or interferes with] the public in the exercise of rights common to all, in a manner such as to... interfere with use by the public of a public place or endanger or injure the property, health, safety or comfort of a considerable number of persons.' N.Y. State Nat'l Org. for Women v. Terry, 886 F.2d 1339, 1361 (2d Cir. 1989) (quoting Copart Indus., Inc. v. Consol. Edison Co., 41 N.Y.2d 564, 568, 394 N.Y.S.2d 169, 172, 362 N.E.2d 968, 971 (1977)), cert. denied, 495 U.S. 947 (1990). A public nuisance may be caused by protest activities at health clinics that endanger the health and security of a considerable number of persons. Terry, 886 F.2d at 1362. In Terry, the illegal conduct included mass demonstrations that obstructed vehicular and pedestrian traffic, making clinic access uncertain and precarious. Id. 41 In general, the nuisance claim in this case rides piggyback on the F.A.C.E. claim. The types of behavior that impeded clinic access also created a nuisance by interfering with the administration of medical care at health clinics. As with F.A.C.E., the nuisance case against Warren is short on details. The District Court did not discuss Warren's current protest conduct, and narrates no recent instance in which Warren created a public nuisance. Based on this record, New York public nuisance law cannot support a preliminary injunction against Warren. The state law claim suffers the same infirmities as the F.A.C.E. claim. It is possible that the District Court, on remand, might conclude that Warren's actions in violation of the T.R.O. created a public nuisance, justifying injunctive relief. But on the record before us, we cannot sustain the injunction based on public nuisance. 42 Nor does New York state trespass law provide a suitable basis for injunctive relief against Warren. Under New York law, trespass is the interference with a person's right to possession of real property either by an unlawful act or a lawful act performed in an unlawful manner. Terry, 886 F.2d at 1361 (2d Cir. 1989) (citing Ivancic v. Olmstead, 66 N.Y.2d 349, 352, 497 N.Y.S.2d 326, 488 N.E.2d 72 (1985), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1117 (1986) and Phillips v. Sun Oil Co., 307 N.Y. 328, 331, 121 N.E.2d 249 (1954)). The threat of continuing trespass entitles a property owner to injunctive relief where irreparable injury may result. Terry, 886 F.2d at 1361 (citing Exchange Bakery & Rest., Inc. v. Rifkin, 245 N.Y. 260, 268, 157 N.E. 130 (1927)). 43 Initially, this cause of action appears the strongest basis for injunctive relief against Warren. He has, after all, been convicted of trespassing on the property of Genessee Hospital on several different occasions. Setting aside the question of whether trespass would justify such a broad injunction, or whether Warren's sporadic trespasses constitute a continuing violation posing a risk of irreparable injury, we find the trespass claim inadequate for one fundamental reason. The victim of the trespasses, Genessee Hospital, is not a party to this action, and so the plaintiffs cannot assert a cause of action under New York law for trespass on property owned and used entirely by another. See, e.g., Terry, 886 F.2d at 1361 (The threat of continuing trespass entitles a property owner to injunctive relief where irreparable injury may result.) (emphasis added); see also N.Y. State Energy Research & Dev. Auth. v. Nuclear Fuel Serv., Inc., 561 F. Supp. 954, 968 n.3 (W.D.N.Y. 1983) ([I]njunctive relief if otherwise appropriate will be available purely to vindicate the possessor's interest in the property.) (emphasis added). In Terry, for example, the plaintiffs seeking injunctive relief were themselves the victims of trespasses by the defendants. 44 Neither F.A.C.E. nor the state law causes of action support the injunction against Warren. We therefore vacate the injunction against him and remand for additional proceedings consistent with this opinion.