Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Mark LEYSE, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DOMINO'S PIZZA LLC, Defendant-Respondent.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Marylin G. Diamond, J.), entered March 15, 2007, which, in a purported class action seeking an injunction and a judgment declaring that defendant food distributor trespassed on plaintiff's property by slipping an advertising flier under the door to plaintiff's apartment without plaintiff's permission, granted defendant's cross motion to dismiss the complaint and for 22 NYCRR part 130 costs and sanctions, unanimously modified, on the facts, to vacate the award of costs and sanctions, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.
The action was properly dismissed in the absence of prior notice by plaintiff to defendant that he objected to delivery of the flier. Such notice was required by defendant's constitutional right of free speech (cf. Rowan v. United States Post Off. Dept., 397 U.S. 728, 90 S.Ct. 1484, 25 L.Ed.2d 736 [1970]; Tillman v. Distribution Sys. of Am., 224 A.D.2d 79, 648 N.Y.S.2d 630 [1996], lv. denied 89 N.Y.2d 814, 659 N.Y.S.2d 855, 681 N.E.2d 1302 [1997] ). In addition, the specter of numerous apartment dwellers suing distributors of restaurant fliers warrants a floodgate. The action, however, is not frivolous. The cases cited by defendant and the motion court do not explicitly rule that prior notice is a constitutional prerequisite to a trespass action brought to protect the privacy of a home against these sorts of intrusions; rather, these cases involved either notice that happened to have been given (id.; Miller v. Distribution Sys. of Am., 175 Misc.2d 513, 670 N.Y.S.2d 668 [1997] ), or a statute that required notice (Rowan, supra ). Nor are part 130 costs and sanctions warranted by plaintiff's continued maintenance of the action after being advised that the offending flier came not from defendant but a franchisee of defendant. There has been no disclosure, and plaintiff's counsel was not required to accept defendant's assertion at face value. We have considered plaintiff's other contentions and find them unavailing.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: February 28, 2008
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)