Weinberg v. Lombardi

217 A.D.2d 579, 629 N.Y.S.2d 280, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7728
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJuly 10, 1995
StatusPublished
Cited by18 cases

This text of 217 A.D.2d 579 (Weinberg v. Lombardi) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Weinberg v. Lombardi, 217 A.D.2d 579, 629 N.Y.S.2d 280, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7728 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, for injunctive relief and to recover damages for trespass, the defendant, Gary Lombardi, appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lane, J.), dated April 25, 1994, as, upon partially granting the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, is in favor of the plaintiffs and against him directing him to "fully roll up the shades on the balcony of his apartment except when actually using, and physically present upon, the said balcony”.

Ordered that the order and judgment is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and the plaintiffs’ motion is denied.

No basis existed for the Supreme Court to grant the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment with regard to either their cause of action to recover damages for trespass or their cause of action sounding in private nuisance. With regard to the former, it is clear that the facts pleaded by the plaintiffs did not establish that by erecting a shade on his balcony, the defendant Gary Lombardi invaded the plaintiffs’ interest in the exclusive possession of their premises (see, Copart Indus, v Consolidated Edison Co., 41 NY2d 564, 570).

The elements of the tort of private nuisance are: (1) an interference, substantial in nature; (2) intentional in origin; (3) unreasonable in character; (4) with plaintiff’s right to use and enjoy land; (5) caused by the defendant’s conduct (Copart Indus. v Consolidated Edison Co., supra). However, except for the issue of whether the plaintiff has the requisite property interest, each of the other elements is a question for the jury, unless the evidence is undisputed (PJI 3:16). Since in this case, Mr. Lombardi disputed the evidence relating to the other elements, no basis existed for the Supreme Court to grant the plaintiffs summary judgment on their cause of action to recover damages for private nuisance.

Lastly, we conclude that there exists a triable issue of fact as to whether Mr. Lombardi obtained the permission of the Board of Directors of The Cryder House, Inc., to erect the shade, as required by its rules. Balletta, J. P., Thompson, Santucci, Altman and Hart, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Krakovski v. Stavros Assoc., LLC
2026 NY Slip Op 00123 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2026)
408 St. John's LLC v. Valentine
2025 NY Slip Op 51878(U) (New York Supreme Court, Kings County, 2025)
AA Med., P.C. v. Miller
2024 NY Slip Op 50795(U) (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 2024)
Concerned Citizens of Forest Hills Inc. v. West Side Tennis Club
2024 NY Slip Op 50420(U) (New York Supreme Court, Queens County, 2024)
Ivory v. International Business Machines Corp.
116 A.D.3d 121 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Gedney Commons Homeowners Ass'n v. Davis
85 A.D.3d 854 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Ford v. Fink
84 A.D.3d 725 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Stanley v. Amalithone Realty, Inc.
31 Misc. 3d 995 (New York Supreme Court, 2011)
Broxmeyer v. United Capital Corp.
79 A.D.3d 780 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Congregation B'nai Jehuda v. Hiyee Realty Corp.
35 A.D.3d 311 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Anderson v. Elliott
24 A.D.3d 400 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
Ward v. City of New York
15 A.D.3d 392 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
Kaplan v. Incorporated Village
12 A.D.3d 410 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Schwegel v. Chiaramonte
4 A.D.3d 519 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Kaniklidis v. 235 Lincoln Place Housing Corp.
305 A.D.2d 546 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
Nowak v. Madura
304 A.D.2d 733 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
Zimmerman v. Carmack
292 A.D.2d 601 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
217 A.D.2d 579, 629 N.Y.S.2d 280, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7728, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/weinberg-v-lombardi-nyappdiv-1995.