## Facts

- Consolidated Laundries Corporation operated a commercial laundry on East 94th Street in New York City and regularly parked and stored its trucks (and some cars) on the public sidewalk in front of its building.
- Vehicles were kept on the sidewalk even when they were not being loaded or unloaded.
- The practice substantially obstructed sidewalk access to Graceland Corp.’s adjacent apartment buildings, though it did not completely prevent pedestrian passage.
- Graceland purchased and remodeled three adjacent multiple-dwelling buildings and claimed the obstruction adversely affected the properties’ rental value.
- Graceland supported its claim of harm with expert testimony and rental evidence.
- A New York City Administrative Code provision permitted sidewalk use for loading and unloading for reasonable periods, but not continuous parking or storage.

## Issues

1. Whether the ongoing parking and storage of vehicles on a public sidewalk, outside of loading and unloading, constituted an unlawful obstruction and public nuisance.
2. Whether an adjacent property owner may seek injunctive relief and damages for a public nuisance upon proof of special injury, where the obstruction substantially interferes with access and reduces rental value.

## Decision

- The Appellate Division affirmed the grant of a permanent injunction and nominal damages, holding that the laundry’s sidewalk parking and storage constituted an illegal obstruction and public nuisance.
- The court held Graceland established special injury different in kind from the public’s inconvenience, based on substantial interference with access to its premises and an adverse effect on rental value.
- The injunction was modified to clarify that the laundry could use the sidewalk for loading and unloading its commercial vehicles for reasonable periods, as permitted by the Administrative Code.
- The New York Court of Appeals affirmed without opinion.

## Legal Principles

- A private plaintiff may maintain an action to abate a public nuisance only upon showing special injury that differs in kind, not merely degree, from that suffered by the public at large.
- An adjacent owner’s special injury may be shown by an illegal sidewalk obstruction that substantially impairs access to the owner’s premises and causes property-specific economic harm, such as diminished rental value, even if pedestrian traffic is not entirely blocked.
- Injunctive relief should be tailored to prohibit unlawful sidewalk storage while preserving lawful, reasonable loading and unloading activity authorized by municipal regulation.

## Conclusion

The courts treated the laundry’s non-loading-related sidewalk vehicle storage as a public nuisance and allowed an adjacent owner to obtain injunctive relief and nominal damages because the obstruction substantially impaired access and reduced rental value, while limiting the injunction to preserve reasonable loading and unloading.


Graceland Corp. v. Consolidated Laundries Corp., 7 A.D.2d 89, 180 N.Y.S.2d 644 (1st Dep’t 1958), aff’d, 6 N.Y.2d 900, 190 N.Y.S.2d 708, 160 N.E.2d 926 (1959)