"Big Brother is watching you": 1984, George Orwell
Ienopoli v. Lent, NYLJ September 05, 2019, Date filed: 2019-08-19
Court: Supreme Court, Nassau; Judge: Justice Diccia Pineda-Kirwan; Case Number: 606251/19:
"Upon the foregoing cited papers, and after conference, it is ordered
that this petition for an order directing respondents to remove or
redirect their cameras, pursuant to New York Civil Rights Law §52-a, is
determined as follows: Petitioners and respondents are neighbors
residing at 9 Jerry Lane and 7 Jerry Lane, Glen Cove, New York,
respectively. The parties’ properties abut and their backyards share a
common fence line. Petitioners claim that respondents installed numerous
cameras on their property aimed at petitioners’ property, including
their backyard and windows, without petitioners’ consent. Petitioners
believe that the cameras were installed with the intent to harass,
annoy, and alarm them, or with the intent to threaten petitioners’
person or property.
New York Civil Rights Law §52-a gives an owner
of residential real property “a private right of action for damages”
against anyone “who installs or affixes a video imaging device” on
property adjoining their residential real property with “the purpose of
video taping or taking moving digital images of the recreational
activities which occur in the backyard of the residential real property
without the written consent thereto of such owner” when such action is
taken “with intent to harass, annoy or alarm another person, or with
intent to threaten the person or property of another person.”
The
parties acknowledge that there have not been any cases guiding the
application of New York Civil Rights Law §52-a. When interpreting a
statute, courts must try to ascertain the Legislature’s intent, by first
looking at the statute’s plain language (see Feinman v. Cty. of Nassau,
154 AD3d 739, 740 [2017]). Here, the statute states that it permits “a
private right of action for damages.” In the instant matter, petitioners
admittedly are not seeking damages but equitable relief in the form of
an order directing respondents to redirect or move their cameras.
Additionally, when statutory language is ambiguous, the court may
reference the statute’s legislative history (see Jackson v. Bank of Am.,
N.A., 149 AD3d 815, 821 [2017]). The Sponsors Memorandum for the bill
explains the statute’s “[j]ustification” as closing a gap in Stephanie’s
Law, which was enacted in 2003 after a woman discovered that she was
being videotaped in her bedroom by her landlord (see NY Sponsor’s Mem,
2017, SB 870). Stephanie’s Law codified unlawful surveillance as a Class
E felony, but did not have any restriction against video monitoring a
neighbor’s backyard (see Id). New York Civil Rights Law §52-a was meant
to address this deficiency, and the Sponsor’s Memorandum references an
instance in which a family with young children was under constant video
surveillance in their backyard by a neighbor who is a registered sex
offender (see Id). The statute helps to ensure the rights of individuals
to enjoy their backyards with a certain expectation of privacy and not
be subjected to an adjoining landowner’s harassing or annoying behavior
(see Id).
Here, petitioners submit, among other things, photographs
of cameras on respondent’s property and the affidavit of Lina Ienopoli.
It is impossible to discern from the photographs alone where the cameras
are focused and if they indeed are aimed at petitioners’ windows and
backyard as petitioners allege. Additionally, aside from Ms. Ienopoli’s
bare statement that “[u]pon information and belief,” the cameras were
installed “with the intent to harass, annoy or alarm…or with the intent
to threaten the person or property of” petitioners, there is no evidence
submitted to establish same.
Furthermore, in opposition,
respondents submit, among other things, the affidavit of Christopher
Lent. Mr. Lent states that he installed the cameras in January of 2019
after petitioner Francesco Ienopoli allegedly threatened him stating in
sum and substance “You are this close to me burning your house down,”
while putting his fingers close together as he said “this close.” Mr.
Lent avers that he installed the cameras solely for the purpose of
protecting his family and his property. He claims that the cameras do
not tape or image petitioners’ backyard and were not installed to annoy,
harass, or threaten petitioners.
It is evident that the relief
petitioners seek is not provided for by the plain language of the
statute. Additionally, petitioners fail to establish that respondents
installed their cameras with the requisite intent prohibited by the
statute. Lastly, both the incident that served as the impetus for
Stephanie’s Law, and the one referenced in the Sponsors Memorandum, are
clearly distinguishable from the instant matter. Nothing in the statute
or the Sponsors Memorandum suggests that Civil Rights Law §52-a was
enacted in any part to curtail the rights of property owners to secure
their property through the use of security cameras. Thus, petitioners
fail to establish their entitlement to an order directing the removal or
redirection of respondents’ cameras."
Posts
