374 F. Supp. 3d 227
E.D.N.Y2019Background
- Plaintiffs own beachfront homes in Montauk adjacent to two jetties built/maintained as a Federal Navigation Project; they sued multiple defendants alleging the jetties caused beach erosion and sought damages and equitable relief.
- After multiple motions, only the Town of East Hampton remained as a defendant at trial; jury found the Town liable for private nuisance and trespass and awarded $355,961.27 in compensatory damages.
- The Town moved post-trial under Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b) (judgment as a matter of law) and alternatively Rule 59 (new trial); Plaintiffs did not move for post-trial relief.
- Trial evidence established the jetties and inlet were federal navigation projects, the Army Corps exercised exclusive control under a federal easement, and the Town had relinquished practical control and limited authority over the jetties.
- The court found sufficient evidence that Plaintiffs suffered substantial interference with use and enjoyment of their land, but concluded the Town neither acted nor had the legal control/duty required to have caused or intentionally created the nuisance or trespass.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Town is liable for private nuisance (intentional) | Town’s inaction/ownership allowed jetties to cause or exacerbate erosion; Town could address impact | Town lacked control or legal authority over jetties (federal easement); did not act or have duty to act | Town not liable — no evidence Town intentionally caused nuisance or had control/duty to act |
| Whether Town is liable for private nuisance (negligence) | Town negligently failed to prevent or mitigate erosion affecting Plaintiffs | No duty existed because the Army Corps, as dominant easement holder, had exclusive control; Town had no legal duty | Town not liable — no duty established, so negligent nuisance fails |
| Whether Town is liable for trespass | Invasion of Plaintiffs’ property by water/sand attributable to Town’s conduct/inaction | Trespass requires intentional or willful entry; Town neither acted nor negligently entered and lacked control | Town not liable — no intentional/willful entry or negligent action causing intrusion |
| Whether verdict/damages should stand or be vacated/new trial warranted | Plaintiffs urged jury verdict and awarded damages be upheld | Town argued verdict unsupported by evidence and damages excessive as to non-responsible party | Court vacated award, granted Rule 50(b) judgment for Town; conditionally granted Rule 59 new trial (if 50(b) reversed), finding verdict against weight of evidence and Town’s conduct reasonable |
Key Cases Cited
- Copart Indus., Inc. v. Consol. Edison of N.Y., 41 N.Y.2d 564 (N.Y. 1977) (elements of private nuisance require substantial, intentional, unreasonable interference caused by another's conduct)
- Sutera v. Go Jokir, Inc., 86 F.3d 298 (2d Cir. 1996) (duties under an easement generally rest on the dominant owner; servient owner's duties are negative)
- Kinneary v. City of N.Y., 601 F.3d 151 (2d Cir. 2010) (standard for granting judgment as a matter of law — only where reasonable jurors could not reach a contrary verdict)
- Ireland v. Suffolk Cty. of N.Y., [citation="367 F. App'x 234"] (2d Cir. 2010) (county was a mere instrumentality where Army Corps made discretionary decisions to construct and maintain shore structures; no duty to plaintiffs)