Quaker Ridge Faces Additional Proceedings Regarding Damages Owed To Neighbor From Errant Tee ShotsFor the uninitiated, in November 2007, Leon and Gail Behar purchased a home adjacent to Quaker Ridge’s second hole. The following summer, a storm brought down an 80 foot tree on the golf course/neighbor boundary, bringing other trees down with it. Until their demise, the trees had provided a buffer protecting the Behars from errant tee shots.
In April 2010 (yes, a decade ago), Mr. and Ms. Behar filed suit, alleging that the club had “failed to take the necessary and proper steps to prevent the incursion of golf balls onto their property.” To my personal surprise, the New York Appellate Court reversed the trial court’s initial denial of the Behars claim, finding that, even though they chose to purchase a home adjacent to a long present golf club, the club was barred “from operating its golf course in a manner which constitutes a private nuisance and causes a trespass upon the [Behars’ property].” The upshot of the Appellate Court’s ruling, at least in the state of New York, was to make clear that golf clubs bear responsibility to keep balls within the confines of their property, or at least to ensure they do not violate the rights of adjacent property owners.
Having resolved the claim for injunctive relief, the Appellate Court sent the case back to the trial court to address the Behars’ claim for money damages which they alleged resulted from the wrongful invasion of golf balls. On this claim, the trial court was not especially sympathetic to Mr. and Ms. Behar, awarding them only $7,323.75, representing partial loss of use and enjoyment of their property for six months. The trial court rejected claims by the Behars that they sustained permanent injury to their property that would warrant damages for loss of market value. The trial court also rejected their claim to recover costs of planting 20 trees measuring 45 feet in height, and the installation of a sprinkler system.
Unhappy with the court’s determination of damages, Mr. and Ms. Behar appealed. The Appellate Court’s recent decision affirmed the trial court’s rejection of the claim of damages for permanent injury. As the Appellate Court explained:
“We agree with the court’s determination to reject the testimony of the Behars’ expert witness that there was a 40% permanent diminution in the fair market value of the Behars’ property as his opinion was based upon speculation … Moreover, the evidence adduced at trial demonstrated that the Club made significant modifications to the second hole, which were effective in alleviating the incursion of golf balls onto the Behars’ property. Thus, we agree with the court’s determination to reject the Behars’ contention that they suffered a permanent injury to their property.”
The Appellate Court similarly upheld the trial court’s rejection of damages for the trees planted by the Behars. According to the Appellate Court,
“Furthermore, we agree with the Supreme Court’s determination declining to award the Behars damages to reimburse them for allegedly undertaking certain measures to prevent the incursion of golf balls onto their property inasmuch as the Behars failed to demonstrate that they were reasonably warranted, especially in light of the Club’s installation of a 40-foot-tall net adjacent to their property.”
The Appellate Court did, however, conclude that the trial court was too restrictive in its conclusions regarding the period in which the Behars were unable to enjoy full use of their property. The Appellate Court sent the case back to the trial court for recalculation of these damages.
Our previous posts on this case can be found here and here.