Opinion ID: 718604
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Private Nuisance

Text: 27 The Scribners also contend that Jasco's conduct was sufficient to create a private nuisance. Again, we agree. 28 A private nuisance threatens one person or a relatively few, an essential feature being an interference with the use or enjoyment of land. It is actionable by the individual person or persons whose rights have been disturbed. Copart Indus. v. Consolidated Edison Co., 41 N.Y.2d 564, 568, 394 N.Y.S.2d 169, 362 N.E.2d 968 (1977) (citations omitted); see also New York v. Shore Realty Corp., 759 F.2d 1032, 1050 (2d Cir.1985). In order to establish liability under a private nuisance theory, plaintiff must show that defendant's conduct: 29 is a legal cause of the invasion of the interest in the private use and enjoyment of land and such invasion is (1) intentional and unreasonable, (2) negligent or reckless, or (3) actionable under the rules governing liability for abnormally dangerous conditions or activities. 30 Copart, 41 N.Y.2d at 569, 394 N.Y.S.2d 169, 362 N.E.2d 968 (emphasis added). 31 The elements of a private nuisance cause of action, premised on an intentional and unreasonable invasion, are: (1) an interference substantial in nature, (2) intentional in origin, (3) unreasonable in character, (4) with a person's property right to use and enjoy land, (5) caused by another's conduct in acting or failure to act. Id. at 570, 394 N.Y.S.2d 169, 362 N.E.2d 968. In particular, an invasion of another's interest in the use and enjoyment of land is intentional in origin  'when the actor (a) acts for the purpose of causing it; or (b) knows that it is resulting or is substantially certain to result from his conduct.'  Id. at 571, 394 N.Y.S.2d 169, 362 N.E.2d 968 (citations omitted). 32 We conclude that Jasco's conduct constituted a private nuisance, based on intentional and unreasonable conduct. Specifically, under Copart, we find that: (1) there were high levels of barium contamination on the Scribner's property, Scribner, No. 94-CV-6094L, slip. op. at 10; (2) Jasco knew that contamination was substantially certain to result from its conduct, see Copart, 41 N.Y.2d at 571, 394 N.Y.S.2d 169, 362 N.E.2d 968, based on its demolition and cleansing practices, as well as the mov[ement of] water into a swale on Jasco's land, but near the boundary with plaintiffs, Appellee's Brief at 15, which was located downhill from Jasco's property; (3) Jasco's on-site disposal and cleansing practices from 1986 to 1990--coupled with its knowledge that barium is a hazardous waste--were unreasonable; (4) the contamination interfered with the Scribners' use and enjoyment of their land, at the very least because the Scribners are faced with the inconvenience of having the hazardous waste removed from their property, see Scribner, No. 94-CV-6094L, slip. op. at 10, 13-14; 1 and (5) Jasco's conduct caused the invasion, see id. at 17 (because of [Jasco's] improper cleaning and demolition of the furnaces, [barium] was allowed to migrate off site onto plaintiffs' property). We therefore hold that Jasco is liable under a theory of private nuisance.