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.
INCORPORATED VILLAGE OF ASHAROKEN, et al., appellants, v. LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY, respondent. (Action No. 1).
Anthony Sbarro, et al., plaintiffs, Arnold Gallo, appellant, v. Long Island Lighting Company, respondent. (Action No. 2).
In two related actions, inter alia, for injunctive relief to abate a private nuisance, which were joined for trial, the plaintiffs in Action No. 1 and Arnold Gallo, a plaintiff in Action No. 2, appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Tanenbaum, J.), dated June 29, 2007, as, after a nonjury trial, is in favor of the defendant and against them, dismissing the complaints insofar as asserted by them in both actions.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The defendant in these two actions maintains jetties and channels in Long Island Sound in connection with the operation of a power station. These structures block sand that would otherwise naturally accrete onto the shores of Asharoken Beach. Pursuant to the conditions of its permit from the United States Army Corps of Engineers that allows it to maintain these structures, the defendant is required to periodically deposit sand onto Asharoken Beach to compensate for the sand that it blocks.
The appellants, the Incorporated Village of Asharoken and a number of individual property owners, commenced these two related actions alleging that the defendant is causing erosion at Asharoken Beach by blocking more sand than it is depositing, and that these actions constitute a public and private nuisance (see Copart Indus. v. Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y., 41 N.Y.2d 564, 568-569, 394 N.Y.S.2d 169, 362 N.E.2d 968). At trial, the appellants failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant is blocking more sand than it is depositing; thus, the appellants failed to prove that any erosion that is occurring at Asharoken Beach is being caused by the defendant, as opposed to other factors. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly dismissed the complaints insofar as asserted by the appellants in the two actions.
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: December 16, 2008
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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)