The owners of a New York City luxury condominium sued their neighbor for cigarette smoke drifting into their unit. The court found that the condominium rules are silent about smoking in residences but that the rules prohibit any objectionable odors or activity, which interfere with the “rights, comforts, or conveniences” of other owners. The court allowed the owners’ claims for negligence and nuisance to move forward. The court also found it was permissible for the owners to sue their neighbor without involving the condominium association in the lawsuit.
An individual or organization may seek civil damages against a tobacco company based on the claim that the use of tobacco products causes disease or death. Some of these cases will relate to general tobacco products, while others will relate to specific subcategories of tobacco products--for example, light or low products, menthol or other flavored products. Additionally, there may be cases relating to exposure to secondhand smoke.
A claim for violating a law protecting tenants or home owners, such as the covenant of quiet enjoyment, the warranty of habitability, constructive eviction, or trespass. For example, a tenant could sue a neighbor or the property owner when exposed to drifting secondhand smoke in their home.
Type of Tobacco Product
None
Limitations regarding the use of quotes The quotes provided here reflect statements from a specific decision. Accordingly, the International Legal Consortium (ILC) cannot guarantee that an appellate court has not reversed a lower court decision which may influence the applicability or influence of a given quote. All quotes have been selected based on the subjective evaluations undertaken by the ILC meaning that quotes provided here may not accurately or comprehensively represent a given court’s opinion or conclusion, as such quotes may have originally appeared alongside other negative opinions or accompanying facts. Further, some quotes are derived from unofficial English translations, which may alter their original meaning. We emphasize the need to review the original decision and related decisions before authoritatively relying on quotes. Using quotes provided here should not be construed as legal advice and is not intended to be a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter in any jurisdiction. Please see the full limitations at https://www.tobaccocontrollaws.org/about.
"The bylaws, rule and regulations on their face are silent regarding whether smoking is permitted or prohibited in individual units. On the one hand, the fact that the documents expressly prohibit smoking only in specific public areas of the building implies that smoking is allowed in private areas, such as individual units. On the other hand, paragraph 11 of the rules and regulations clearly states that unit owner are not allowed to permit objectionable odors to interfere with the "rights, comforts and conveniences" of other owners, tenants, or occupants. Such language implies that smoking is not allowed in individual units if secondhand smokes invades other units, as is alleged in this case. In light of the above analysis, it is clear to the court that the documentary evidence does not conclusively establish a defense to the asserted claim as a matter of law."
Limitations regarding the use of quotes The quotes provided here reflect statements from a specific decision. Accordingly, the International Legal Consortium (ILC) cannot guarantee that an appellate court has not reversed a lower court decision which may influence the applicability or influence of a given quote. All quotes have been selected based on the subjective evaluations undertaken by the ILC meaning that quotes provided here may not accurately or comprehensively represent a given court’s opinion or conclusion, as such quotes may have originally appeared alongside other negative opinions or accompanying facts. Further, some quotes are derived from unofficial English translations, which may alter their original meaning. We emphasize the need to review the original decision and related decisions before authoritatively relying on quotes. Using quotes provided here should not be construed as legal advice and is not intended to be a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter in any jurisdiction. Please see the full limitations at https://www.tobaccocontrollaws.org/about.
The owners of a New York City luxury condominium sued their neighbor for cigarette smoke drifting into their unit. The court found that the condominium rules are silent about smoking in residences but that the rules prohibit any objectionable odors or activity, which interfere with the “rights, comforts, or conveniences” of other owners. The court allowed the owners’ claims for negligence and nuisance to move forward. The court also found it was permissible for the owners to sue their neighbor without involving the condominium association in the lawsuit.