Groton Nuisance Law Found Invalid by Court

LVT Number: #27787

The Groton Village Board of Trustees passed the Property and Building Nuisance Law (Local Law No. 4 of 2014) to establish various methods by which a property could be identified as a public nuisance. The law included a system by which points were assigned for various forms of conduct, ranging from 2 points for minor offenses to 12 points for certain Penal Law violations. A property accumulating at least 12 points in six months or 18 points in a year would be deemed a public nuisance. The owner would then be given a chance to abate the nuisance or face civil fines.

The Groton Village Board of Trustees passed the Property and Building Nuisance Law (Local Law No. 4 of 2014) to establish various methods by which a property could be identified as a public nuisance. The law included a system by which points were assigned for various forms of conduct, ranging from 2 points for minor offenses to 12 points for certain Penal Law violations. A property accumulating at least 12 points in six months or 18 points in a year would be deemed a public nuisance. The owner would then be given a chance to abate the nuisance or face civil fines.

The village sued landlord, claiming that four of his buildings had become unabated nuisances under the 2014 law. Landlord claimed that the law conflicted with state law and violated tenants' rights to seek redress of grievances from law enforcement. Landlord started an Article 78 court proceeding and asked the court to permanently enjoin enforcement of the Nuisance Law. Among other things, landlord claimed that the law improperly imposed liability on landlords for tenant misconduct that the landlord couldn't control or foresee. And loss of a tenant's home could result directly from the designation of a property as a public nuisance.

The court found that the Nuisance Law had a chilling effect upon tenants' exercise of their First Amendment right to petition the government, since it penalized them for doing so by using their constitutionally protected activity of calling law enforcement to request assistance or to report a crime as a reason for identifying their homes as public nuisances. So the court ruled for landlord and tenants and found that the Nuisance Law on its face was overbroad and invalid since it improperly prohibited a "real and substantial amount of expression guarded by the First Amendment." The village complaint against landlord also should have been dismissed. 

Board of Trustees of the Village of Groton v. Pirro: 2017 NY Slip Op 04938, 2017 WL 2587813 (App.. Div. 3d Dept.; 6/15/17; Peters, PJ, Garry, Lynch, Clark, Aarons, JJ)