## Facts

- A Manhattan condominium building formerly served as Good Shepherd Episcopal Church’s parish house; the church sold it decades earlier, leaving the church as an adjacent property owner.
- In June 1989, the church began operating a temporary overnight shelter on its premises, in cooperation with a nonprofit coordinator, providing beds for ten homeless men three nights per week.
- Condominium residents and representatives objected, asserting fears of increased crime, drug activity, prostitution, and reduced property values.
- Plaintiffs sought to enjoin the shelter and alleged (i) zoning and occupancy violations, (ii) public and private nuisance, and (iii) failure to conduct required environmental review based on the city’s involvement.
- Defendants cross-moved to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action.

## Issues

1. Whether operating a small, intermittent homeless shelter in a church building is a permissible accessory use under the applicable zoning and occupancy scheme.
2. Whether allegations of potential crime, disorder, and diminished property values state claims for private or public nuisance.
3. Whether the city’s limited support for the shelter triggered environmental review requirements, including an environmental impact statement.
4. Whether plaintiffs met the standards for a temporary injunction (likelihood of success, irreparable harm, and balance of equities).

## Decision

- The court denied plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary injunction.
- The court granted defendants’ motions to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action.
- The shelter was held to be a permissible accessory use of church property under the zoning framework.
- The nuisance claims were dismissed as speculative and insufficient to show substantial interference with property rights or an unreasonable interference with a public right.
- The environmental claim was dismissed because the city’s limited assistance was treated as an exempt (Type II) action not requiring an environmental impact statement.

## Legal Principles

- Religious institutions may lawfully engage in charitable and community-service activities that are reasonably incidental to their primary use, and such activities can qualify as permissible accessory uses under zoning rules.
- Private nuisance requires a substantial interference with the use and enjoyment of land; conjectural fears and anticipated misconduct, without concrete facts showing substantial interference, do not state a claim.
- Public nuisance requires an unreasonable interference with a right common to the general public; generalized apprehension about possible future harms is inadequate.
- Environmental review obligations are not triggered where governmental involvement is limited and the action is classified as exempt under applicable regulations.
- Temporary injunctive relief requires likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm, and equities favoring the movant; failure on these elements warrants denial.

## Conclusion

The court refused to halt a church-operated, small-scale homeless shelter and dismissed the complaint, holding the shelter was a lawful accessory use, the asserted harms were speculative and insufficient for nuisance, and the city’s limited support did not require environmental review.


Greentree at Murray Hill Condominium v. Good Shepherd Episcopal Church, 146 Misc. 2d 500, 550 N.Y.S.2d 981 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cnty. 1989)