Impellizerri v. Jamesville Federated Church
428 N.Y.S.2d 550, 1979 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2955, 104 Misc. 2d 620 (1979)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For an activity to constitute an actionable private nuisance, it must cause a material and unreasonable interference with the physical comfort of an ordinary person of normal health and sensibilities, not merely an individual with a peculiar or hypersensitive condition.
Facts:
- The Jamesville Federated Church plays its carillon, a series of musical bells, three times a day and four times on Sundays for approximately four minutes each time.
- Anthony and Luana Impellizzerri live near the church and claim the bells harm them.
- The Impellizzeris allege the bells keep their son, who has a neurological disease, awake and aggravate Luana Impellizzerri's migraine headaches and muscle spasms.
- The family also claims the bell sounds disrupt conversation and cause them severe anxiety and emotional stress.
- The church made several attempts to compromise, including moving the speakers, reducing playing time, and lowering the sound intensity.
- No other neighbors, including several who live closer to the church than the Impellizzeris, have complained about the carillon.
- The Impellizzeris admit that at times, normal village and traffic sounds are loud enough to drown out the sound of the bells.
Procedural Posture:
- Anthony and Luana Impellizzerri (Plaintiffs) filed a complaint against the Jamesville Federated Church (Defendant) in the New York Supreme Court, a trial-level court.
- The Plaintiffs' complaint sought an injunction to restrain the church from playing its carillon.
- The Defendant filed a cross-motion to dismiss the complaint.
- The case was submitted to the court for a decision on the parties' motions without a hearing.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the regular playing of a church's carillon constitute an actionable private nuisance when it allegedly harms neighbors with special health sensitivities, but would not unreasonably interfere with the health and comfort of an ordinary person?
Opinions:
Majority - John R. Tenney, J.
No. The playing of the church's carillon does not constitute a private nuisance because the standard for nuisance is based on the effect on an ordinary person, not one with special sensitivities. The court reasoned that while individuals have a right to quiet enjoyment of their property, property owners also have a right to make reasonable use of their land. To be an actionable nuisance, an interference must be material and affect the physical comfort of a person of ordinary prudence and sensibilities. The Impellizzeris' complaints stem from their specific health conditions, which make them hypersensitive to the sound. Since no other neighbors complained and the sound is not inherently unreasonable, it does not meet the legal standard for a nuisance that would justify an injunction. The court also rejected the religious freedom claim, noting the music is instrumental and does not attempt to preach or impose religious views.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the objective 'ordinary person' standard in private nuisance law, clarifying that a defendant's otherwise reasonable use of property does not become a nuisance simply because it harms a uniquely sensitive plaintiff. The ruling protects property owners from liability based on the idiosyncratic reactions of a hypersensitive neighbor, ensuring that the law balances competing property rights based on a community-oriented, objective standard. It establishes that courts will not grant injunctions against activities that are generally acceptable to the public but are disturbing to one individual due to their peculiar condition. This precedent solidifies the principle that nuisance law is designed to protect the average person's right to quiet enjoyment, not to cater to the special needs of every individual.
