Search Site


In a recent unpublished decision, the Appellate Division found that placing cameras and a speed detector in an easement to monitor the speed of the easement holder constituted an actionable private nuisance.

In that case, Ursitti v. Wilson, 2024 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 197, the defendants lived on and operated a business out of a landlocked parcel of land with a driveway access easement over the plaintiffs’ property. Plaintiffs felt that Defendants’ business led to increased traffic volume, larger vehicles, and increased traffic speed in the easement. To address this, Plaintiffs installed, among other things, several cameras which viewed a portion of the easement and a radar device to monitor vehicle speed in the easement. Following several claims back and forth, all claims were eventually disposed of, other than a private nuisance claim by Defendants. The trial court ruled generally in Defendants’ favor, holding, among other things, that Plaintiffs were required to remove the speed detector and cameras. Plaintiffs appealed.

The appellate court affirmed. After noting that private nuisance is a party’s unreasonable interference with the use and enjoyment of another party’s property, the court reasoned that the cameras and speed detectors made the Defendants and their invitees uncomfortable. As there was no law on which to base the claim that anyone was driving too fast on the easement, Plaintiffs’ attempts to control Defendants’ speed were an unreasonable interference with Defendants’ only means of accessing their property.

Likewise, under the law of easements, Plaintiffs did not have the right to interfere with Defendants’ use of the easement. That the cameras and speed detectors were not physically located on the easement did not change the court’s position, as they still affected Defendants’ use of the easement by making Defendants and their invitees reluctant to fully utilize the driveway.

The court noted that a key factor in analyzing a nuisance claim is whether the utility of the offending party’s conduct is outweighed by the quantum of harm to the other party. While constant surveillance of the easement in the absence of any legal obligation to drive slow served no utility, the court reasoned that such constant monitoring caused harm to Defendants by causing them and their invitees to be reluctant to fully utilize their driveway due to intimidation.

Finally, the court remarked that the fact that Defendants had no right to expect privacy in the easement was irrelevant to their nuisance claim.

Our Attorneys

In The Media

  • On the Run: Runner/lawyer DeBord out to protect the environment she loves

    Bucks County Herald, January 4, 2024

    When Brittany DeBord runs along the Delaware River canal towpath or on the trails of Tyler State Park, she doesn’t just appreciate the natural beauty of the...

    Read More
  • Gulf Coast Town Center facing foreclosure

    Naples Daily News, September 16, 2015

    Wells Fargo filed a lawsuit Sept. 8 against an affiliate of CBL & Associates, the owners of the decadeold, 1.2 million-square-foot mall in south Fort Myers for a $190.9 million unpaid loan. The center has 94 stores on 204 acres, with such anchors as Super Target, Belk, Best Buy, Dick’s Sporting Goods, Marshalls and Costco...

    Read More
  • Town liable for private company's leaking underground tanks, court rules Jul 26, 2017

    CRANFORD -- A couple that owned a businesses in town and became sick from leaking underground tanks owned by an adjacent business can sue the township for damages because the tanks were partially ...

    Read More
  • Dark Waters: How a Class Action Catapulted NJ to Forefront of 'Forever Chemicals' Battle

    NJ Law Journal Jan 09, 2020

    As property owners become increasingly aware of PFAS contamination, and as individuals exposed to PFAS learn of the health risks associated with exposure, liability will likely affect entire supply chains.

    Read More
  1. 1
  2. 2
  3. 3
  4. 4
  5. 5
Contact Our Firm

Quick Contact Form