Behar v. Quaker Ridge Golf Club, Inc.
54 Misc. 3d 358, 42 N.Y.S.3d 538 (2016)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Damages for private nuisance and trespass are measured by the reduction in rental or usable value of the property for the period the injury occurred, and permanent damages are not awarded for temporary injuries or speculative future harm, especially when plaintiffs contribute to the ongoing issue by opposing reasonable abatement measures.
Facts:
- Quaker Ridge Golf Club has operated a golf course at its current location since 1918.
- In 2007, Leon and Michele Behar purchased a newly built home adjacent to Quaker Ridge's golf hole No. 2, having sought a quiet street and desirable school system.
- Before June 2008, tall trees separated the Behar property from the golf course, and no significant golf ball incursions occurred.
- A storm in June 2008 felled several tall trees on the property line, after which the Behars reported a significant increase in golf balls landing on their property.
- The Behars installed an in-ground pool and patio between August 2008 and July 2009, rendering their backyard unusable during that period.
- Quaker Ridge, after an initial 25-foot net installed by the Behars was removed due to a village violation, installed a 40-foot-high net in October 2010, and both parties subsequently planted rows of sizable trees along the property line.
- Following a June 2014 appellate court ruling, Quaker Ridge undertook extensive remedial actions in 2014-2015, including moving a tee box, reconfiguring golf hole No. 2, and planting very large trees, at a cost of nearly $600,000.
- On August 8, 2015, the Behars signed a petition opposing any extension or increase in height of Quaker Ridge's protective netting, claiming their own planted spruce trees made the net obsolete.
Procedural Posture:
- Leon and Michele Behar initiated an action against Quaker Ridge Golf Club, Inc. in the Supreme Court, Westchester County, seeking injunctive relief and damages for nuisance and trespass.
- The Supreme Court, Westchester County, denied the Behars’ motions for a permanent injunction and summary judgment on liability, and granted summary judgment in favor of Quaker Ridge Golf Club.
- The Behars appealed this decision to the Appellate Division, Second Department.
- The Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed the Supreme Court's findings, holding that the Behars were entitled to summary judgment on liability for private nuisance and trespass, granted a permanent injunction, and remanded the case for a determination of damages.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
What is the proper measure of damages for private nuisance and trespass caused by errant golf balls on residential property adjacent to a golf course, and do such damages include permanent diminution in property value or punitive damages, especially when the plaintiffs oppose abatement measures?
Opinions:
Majority - Charles D. Wood, J.
No, the proper measure of damages for private nuisance and trespass caused by errant golf balls is the reduction in rental or usable value for the periods of actual interference, and such damages do not include speculative permanent diminution in property value or punitive damages, particularly when the plaintiffs have actively opposed abatement measures. The court awarded the Behars $7,323.75 in total compensatory damages. For the period of April to June 2011, where liability for nuisance and trespass was previously established by the Appellate Division based on 103 golf balls over 87 days, the court calculated damages using an estimated monthly rent of $15,500, an 80% peak loss of use factor, and a 15% affected area factor, resulting in $5,580. For the months of May, September, and October 2010, the court applied a 25% non-peak loss of use factor and a 15% affected area factor, resulting in $1,743.75. The court found no damages for the period immediately following the June 2008 storm due to lack of an established pattern or notice to Quaker Ridge, nor for the period when the Behars' backyard was under pool construction. Critically, no damages were awarded for periods where the Behars failed to provide ongoing notice of intrusions or when Quaker Ridge's abatement measures (e.g., relocating tee boxes, extensive course modifications) significantly reduced the ball count to a level deemed reasonable for a property adjacent to a golf course (approximately 10 balls per month after modifications), which is consistent with the standard established in Nussbaum v Lacopo. The court rejected the Behars' claims for permanent damages, deeming them speculative and inconsistent with tort law's goal of restoring plaintiffs to their prior position, not a better one. It also rejected punitive damages, finding Quaker Ridge's conduct, while characterized as "willful" in failing to abate, did not rise to the level of "utterly reckless, malicious, or fraudulent" necessary for such an award. The court highlighted the Behars' inconsistent position of claiming safety concerns while simultaneously opposing the expansion and continuation of protective netting, which undermined their claims for future and permanent damages.
Analysis:
This case provides a crucial framework for assessing damages in ongoing nuisance and trespass claims, especially those involving properties adjacent to sports facilities. It clarifies that damages are typically temporary, based on lost use or rental value, and not permanent diminution where the injury can be abated. The court's emphasis on the plaintiff's own actions regarding abatement measures, such as opposing safety netting, significantly impacts their ability to claim ongoing or future damages. This decision underscores that homeowners choosing to live next to a golf course must accept a reasonable level of inconvenience, and that tort law aims to make a plaintiff whole, not to place them in a superior position or to award for speculative future harms.
