Cangemi v. Yeager
2020 NY Slip Op 4023 (2020)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A party is entitled to a preliminary injunction when they demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence a likelihood of success on the merits, a danger of irreparable injury in the absence of an injunction, and a balance of equities in their favor.
Facts:
- Theresa Cangemi and defendants Gretchen Yeager and Steven Nichols own adjoining properties on Oneida Lake.
- Defendants possess an easement granting them a right-of-way over a portion of Cangemi's property for the sole purpose of ingress and egress.
- Following a property dispute, Nichols repeatedly drove his vehicle across Cangemi's lawn and used a snowblower to blow snow onto the side of her house.
- Nichols also tampered with and removed Cangemi's property markers, parked his vehicle to obstruct her driveway, and drove on her freshly paved driveway, leaving tire tracks.
- Nichols repeatedly painted a white line across Cangemi's driveway.
- Nichols installed a surveillance camera and aimed it at Cangemi's backyard and living room, yelling obscenities at her during the installation.
Procedural Posture:
- Theresa Cangemi (plaintiff) commenced an action in the Supreme Court, Onondaga County (a trial court), against Gretchen Yeager and Steven Nichols (defendants), asserting claims of trespass, private nuisance, and a violation of Civil Rights Law § 52-a.
- Plaintiff moved for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order to enjoin defendants' conduct.
- The Supreme Court denied the plaintiff's motion in its entirety.
- Plaintiff (as plaintiff-appellant) appealed the order denying the motion to the Appellate Division, Fourth Department.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a plaintiff entitled to a preliminary injunction against a neighbor's trespassing, nuisance, and harassing conduct when that conduct exceeds the scope of a property easement?
Opinions:
Majority - Memorandum Opinion
Yes. A plaintiff is entitled to a preliminary injunction when they meet the three-part test requiring a likelihood of success on the merits, danger of irreparable injury, and a balance of equities in their favor. Cangemi met her burden by providing clear and convincing evidence for her claims against Nichols. For the trespass claim, Nichols's actions of driving on the lawn and blowing snow were intentional invasions of Cangemi's property rights that exceeded the reasonable use and scope of the easement. For the private nuisance claim, Nichols's cumulative conduct—including blocking the driveway, tampering with markers, and painting lines—constituted a substantial and unreasonable interference with Cangemi's use and enjoyment of her land. Finally, Cangemi demonstrated a likelihood of success on her Civil Rights Law § 52-a claim through video evidence of Nichols installing a surveillance camera aimed at her home while shouting threats and obscenities. The court found that the ongoing nature of this conduct established a danger of irreparable injury that money could not compensate, and that the harm to Cangemi from the conduct far outweighed the harm to Nichols from being enjoined from continuing his unlawful activities.
Analysis:
This case serves as a practical application of the well-established standard for preliminary injunctions in the context of neighbor and property disputes. It clarifies that possessing an easement does not provide a license for harassment or for actions that exceed the easement's specified scope. The court's decision emphasizes that a pattern of harassing behavior, including verbal abuse and invasive surveillance, can constitute irreparable harm justifying immediate injunctive relief. This precedent strengthens the position of property owners facing ongoing harassment by neighbors who abuse shared property rights.
