Tenant's Nuisance Claim Against Owner Isn’t an Open-and-Shut Case

What Happened: Sharing an office building with a gym where individuals and classes deliberately dropped free weights to the ground as part of their “Cross Fit” training made it hard for a tenant to carry out its radiation practice in peace. Frustrated with its failure to stop the “constant array of disturbances, excessive vibrations, massive booms, noxious noise and adverse effect on hangers supporting pipes and conduits,” the tenant sued the landlord for nuisance. The tenant moved for summary judgment, claiming that its legal case was so clear that no trial was necessary.

Decision: The New York court refused the motion and said the tenant would have to prove its nuisance claim at trial.

Reasoning: There was no doubt that the “constant array of disturbances” from the gym substantially interfered with the tenant’s right to use and enjoy the property. But that wasn’t enough to hold the landlord responsible. The tenant also had to show that the landlord created and had some degree of control over the interference. The tenant argued that the landlord did create the problem by leasing to the gym in the first place; and it also could have used its control over the gym to stop the problem. While those arguments might ultimately prove true, the court noted that the landlord also had evidence to contradict them, like all the things it had done to rein in the noise, including requiring the gym to install noise-proofing. Consequently, summary judgment was inappropriate and the sides would have to duke it out at trial.

• Fifth Ave. Ctr., LLC v. Dryland Props., LLC: 2020 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 30, 2020 NY Slip Op 30015(U)