Dudley v. API Indus., Inc.

2025 NY Slip Op 07379 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2025) · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Second Judicial Department · December 31, 2025 · No. 2022-00273

Summary

The New York Appellate Division, Second Department, held that a private nuisance claim may be maintained collectively by homeowners alleging interference with the use and enjoyment of their private property, even when many households are affected. It held that the plaintiffs' negligence claim failed because they alleged neither tangible property damage nor physical injury, and that stigma damages and diminution in property value were insufficient. The court modified the lower court's order accordingly and otherwise affirmed, including the class certification ruling.

Holdings

  1. The negligence claim must be dismissed because plaintiffs alleged neither physical injury nor tangible property damage; diminution in property value and stigma damages alone are insufficient under New York law to sustain negligence.
  2. A private nuisance claim may be maintained by a collective of individuals when the alleged nuisance interferes with each individual's private right to use and enjoy privately owned land; the number of affected persons alone does not convert the claim into a public nuisance.
  3. The Supreme Court properly granted class certification because common questions predominated and the private nuisance claim was not a sham at the certification stage; variation in damages among class members did not defeat certification.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether plaintiffs could maintain a negligence claim based solely on alleged odor invasions, interference with property use, and diminution in property value without alleging physical injury or tangible property damage.
  2. Whether a private nuisance claim may be asserted collectively by a large group of homeowners whose individual property-use rights were allegedly affected by a common source of odors.
  3. Whether the Supreme Court properly granted class certification for the private nuisance claim.
  4. Whether the Supreme Court properly declined to strike certain evidence submitted on the class-certification motion and properly struck defendant's exhibit R.

Disposition

other

Cases Cited (24)

  • William Metrose Ltd. Bldr./Dev. v. Waste Mgt. of N.Y., LLC, 225 AD3d 1223, 1224-1225(followed)
  • Davies v. S.A. Dunn & Co., LLC, 200 AD3d 8, 16-17(distinguished)
  • 532 Madison Ave. Gourmet Foods v. Finlandia Ctr., 96 NY2d 280, 292(followed)
  • Copart Indus. v. Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y., 41 NY2d 564, 568-570(clarified)
  • People v. Brooklyn & Queens Tr. Corp., 283 NY 484, 490-491(followed)
  • DeLuca v. Tonawanda Coke Corp., 134 AD3d 1534, 1536(followed)
  • Burdick v. Tonoga, Inc., 179 AD3d 53(followed)
  • Jenack v. Goshen Operations, LLC, 222 AD3d 36, 41(followed)
  • Matter of Commerce Holding Corp. v. Board of Assessors of Town of Babylon, 88 NY2d 724, 731-732(followed)
  • Criscuola v. Power Auth. of State of N.Y., 81 NY2d 649, 651(followed)

Showing top 10 of 24.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…

More from Supreme Court Of The State Of New York Appellate Division Second Judicial Department Appellate Divis