UES man agrees to pay $2K each time he smokes cigars in his apartment

[El Presidente]

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhatt...EKyxEPzWBKxT9yL

[Habanakane21]

"It's pungent enough that you can't eat dinner,"

Give me an f'in break. I'm soo sick of people!! ha ha

[CanuckSARTech]

Pathetic. I like the comment that someone put on the page about what the Mrs. should be obligated to do in a Macy's window for that 2 grand.

This stuff is getting ridiculous anymore. The only way they pushed this is because of the recent anti-smoking crusade of the New York politicians, IMO.

Last I remember, smoking wasn't actually an illegal activity, ESPECIALLY not in your own abode.

Some of this stuff is getting overly pathetic.

[CanuckSARTech]

My second thought on all this? He must've been smoking Guantanameras!

[Tarks]

"He said his understanding was that Lysons has no intentions of quitting -- he'll just smoke his stogies somewhere else."

Ya, I'm thinking the stairwell is looking pretty good right about now!

[MadMax]

That's the ultra-liberal upper east side for you!!!!

[Puros Y Vino]

That's ridiculous. For that money he could have installed air scrubbers and purifiers and seal in his apartment. He could have paid for their unit too! I have a few ozone machines in the house. They're small but I'd imagine an industrial sized one can do wonders for an apartment of 1000+ sq feet.

I wonder what would have happened if this were a case of foul cooking odours instead of a smoking issue. That's too damn intrusive.

[Orion21]

Not to be offensive, but the Indian family next door is getting a letter from my attorney because their curry makes the whole neighborhood smell...

[Turrbo]

Sorry but this is a bunk issue. If you don't like your neighbor move out or protect yourself. People need to stop crying. Now if this guy is renting, that's another story, but that should be between the owner of the home and the renter, not the freakn' neighbor.

If one persons relaxation is your poison you need to move immediately rather than sue in a drawn out court battle. This to me sounds like a way to chase money. As for the Indian food, sorry man but no everyone eats what you do, how do you know what you eat doesn't disappoint him? As long as it's done in their home and it's not illegal (rape, murder. exc.), it's their right.

[Stalebread]

That's ridiculous. For that money he could have installed air scrubbers and purifiers and seal in his apartment. He could have paid for their unit too! I have a few ozone machines in the house. They're small but I'd imagine an industrial sized one can do wonders for an apartment of 1000+ sq feet.

I wonder what would have happened if this were a case of foul cooking odours instead of a smoking issue. That's too damn intrusive.

If THIS thread is about the same guy, he did seal his apartment.

[Peter11216]

Pathetic. I like the comment that someone put on the page about what the Mrs. should be obligated to do in a Macy's window for that 2 grand.

This stuff is getting ridiculous anymore. The only way they pushed this is because of the recent anti-smoking crusade of the New York politicians, IMO.

Last I remember, smoking wasn't actually an illegal activity, ESPECIALLY not in your own abode.

Some of this stuff is getting overly pathetic.

I don't we can really judge whether the suit was justified or not. The parents claimed the smoke was sickening their children. I think the law is pretty clear, actually. You can be liable for nuisance. No one has a right to pollute his or her neighbour's property, with foul odors, smoke, loud noise, and so forth, even though they may all result from legal activity. If the guy was playing a stereo full blast every night preventing the kids from getting to sleep, presumably everyone would be sympathetic. Of course, everyone also consents to some disturbance from one's neighbours, so there is a reasonable limit on what is real nuisance.

Given what I read in the two Post articles on this, there's nothing which indicates which side is being unreasonable, or whether both are. They are in a co-op, so it is not surprising that there would be a dispute. Suppose the ductwork or ventilation in the building is lousy, and allows cigar smoke to directly enter the kids' playroom. I'm not sure of how co-owners work this kind of thing out, but it is very possible that parents are in the right. If they were in a condo, or renting, it might be proper to complain to or sue the building owner, but in this case they can't do that.

It's no different than if the guy had a set of drums he wanted to play nightly. If the loudness of the noise really was unreasonable, then it would be fair to sue.

[Colt45]

It's no different than if the guy had a set of drums he wanted to play nightly.

I was thinking along the same lines when I first read this. Your neighbor has the right to play their music - you have equal right to not have

to listen to them do so. The things I don't much care for are lawsuits and / or legislation - let commen sense and courtesy prevail.

[PigFish]

... put too many rats in a cage and they eventually become cannibals! People are not built to live like chickens bread to make chicken McNuggets!!! -Piggy

[Peter11216]

I was thinking along the same lines when I first read this. Your neighbor has the right to play their music - you have equal right to not have

to listen to them do so. The things I don't much care for are lawsuits and / or legislation - let commen sense and courtesy prevail.

This story probably tells you more about how lousy the NY Post is, more than anything else. First, this story is not newsworthy - the outcome of the case has no relevance for anyone besides the subjects of the story. Second, there's nothing there to indicate whether the smoke really was problem, only quotes from the family. So even if we were interested, evidently we are, we can't come to any serious conclusion about what actually happened.

[Colt45]

This story probably tells you more about how lousy the NY Post is, more than anything else. First, this story is not newsworthy - the outcome of the case has no relevance for anyone besides the subjects of the story. Second, there's nothing there to indicate whether the smoke really was problem, only quotes from the family. So even if we were interested, evidently we are, we can't come to any serious conclusion about what actually happened.

You mean......... if I see it on tv......... the internet.......... or in the paper.........

it might not be completely factual?

[Peter11216]

You mean......... if I see it on tv......... the internet.......... or in the paper.........

it might not be completely factual?

I would never say something so heretical. The internet is where I learned that a cabal of ancient secret society members carried out the 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, so that they could institute the Patriot Act to go after conspiracy nerds close to uncovering the truth about said secret society's involvement in the JFK assassination.

But seriously, the thing that irks me about this story is that the reporter probably didn't try to find out if the guy's cigar smoke was a real problem, or the family was just overly sensitive. Maybe the parents are health whack-o's or maybe the guy's smoke was literally wafting up into their apartment - or something in between.

It wasn't even clear how they were going to prove the guy was smoking for the $2,000 penalty.

[Cig]

Absolutely ridiculous.

[CanuckSARTech]

I don't we can really judge whether the suit was justified or not. The parents claimed the smoke was sickening their children. I think the law is pretty clear, actually. You can be liable for nuisance. No one has a right to pollute his or her neighbour's property, with foul odors, smoke, loud noise, and so forth, even though they may all result from legal activity. If the guy was playing a stereo full blast every night preventing the kids from getting to sleep, presumably everyone would be sympathetic. Of course, everyone also consents to some disturbance from one's neighbours, so there is a reasonable limit on what is real nuisance.

Given what I read in the two Post articles on this, there's nothing which indicates which side is being unreasonable, or whether both are. They are in a co-op, so it is not surprising that there would be a dispute. Suppose the ductwork or ventilation in the building is lousy, and allows cigar smoke to directly enter the kids' playroom. I'm not sure of how co-owners work this kind of thing out, but it is very possible that parents are in the right. If they were in a condo, or renting, it might be proper to complain to or sue the building owner, but in this case they can't do that.

It's no different than if the guy had a set of drums he wanted to play nightly. If the loudness of the noise really was unreasonable, then it would be fair to sue.

Petrus, in my opinion, the neighbours are jerk offs.

I remember reading a previous story on all of this, when the news initially broke of the lawsuit being filed. Maybe that's the Post's major issue here, for not putting a link in for the previous article, so one can read up on all the missing details... http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhatt...iBXCxmqgQsXmI6K

The parents can claim all they want. From what I remember (and as my wife likes to say, I am wrong once in a while), to me it sounds like they are being ridonkulous. It appears to be separate apartments, but they're like condos apparently, bought apartments. The ventilation was sealed off by a professional, the guy has a couple of air cleaners in his apartment, and he says he smokes outside as much as he can. The parent's are claiming their kid's asthma comes from this guy's cigar smoke, in a separate apartment, with sealed off airflow.

To me, it just sounds like some excessive prudes who don't like the smell. There's no way that it could be as horrible as they're making it out to be - they're grandstanding for the purposes of the lawsuit.

[Colt45]

Petrus, in my opinion, the neighbours are jerk offs.

They may very well be, but unless any of us are directly involved, we can't know. And I think more to the point, how tough would it have been for a

real journalist and / or some kind of official to sit in the Poses' apartment while Mr. Lyson smoked a cigar in his? Perhaps that was done, but left out of

the news story?.......

These days, with information "on demand", and the pressures of breaking a story first, My personal opinion is that journalistic integrity often gets swept

under the rug.

[Peter11216]

To me, it just sounds like some excessive prudes who don't like the smell. There's no way that it could be as horrible as they're making it out to be - they're grandstanding for the purposes of the lawsuit.

It could be. All I'm saying is that it is pretty hard to tell from the story.

Having lived in walkup in the East Village (and, no kidding, being taken to court three times), I wouldn't be surprised if the parents were total nut cases, nor would it surprise me if the cigar guy was deliberately piping smoke into his neighbor's apartment. People do crazy stuff.

The way co-op's work in New York - neighbours may have the incentive to force each other out, in order to expand their apartments. Co-op's are organized as corporations, in which each apartment owner is a shareholder. In some cases, people get very cool apartments by buying out a neighbour's, and expanding. So maybe the parents are trying to force the guy out, because they want his apartment - or vice versa.

[CanuckSARTech]

Both points very much agreed. I see what you guys are both saying, Colt and Petrus.

No, Colt, no way of knowing 100%, true. Just my opinion that based on what's been written, that it's not the smoker who is being excessive in this case. Also, and this is just my slant on things, is that it seems that anymore it has become very "in vogue", especially in New York, to be extremely anti-tobacco. My thoughts with this, and not seeing any of the slant in this situation regarding that, as well as the listing of the plethora of complaints given by the neighbours/parents, is that the smoker is not the one who is being out of line here - I would think that if the smoker was being the foul one, that the newspaper would have called him out on it. It may not be PC for the paper to call out the crusading parents. And, there very much could have been a request made to the parents to neutrally observe, from within their apartment, the odours/smoke due to Mr. Lyson smoking a cigar - maybe it isn't in there, because the parents didn't allow it. Yes, it would have been a grand idea, and a nice one for the Post to show, if that was the case, one way or another. Very true - journalism lately leaves some huge holes, especially with online media.

And Petrus, an interesting perspective. I didn't realize that's the way that it worked in New York with regards to the co-ops - that you can buy out a neighbour's apartment, and expand your own. Again, maybe this is just the pessimistic in me, but then that actually leads me to question the motives of the parents even more so. Mr. Lyson is in his 70's or so, and just has he and his stroke-ridden wife. The parents have two or three small kids, in a two-bedroom apartment. I'd say that their motives for potentially doing this to antagonize and then buy-out a neighbour is pretty much higher.

Again, all in my opinion - no way to know 100%. But things do seem to be tilting very heavily on the parents for being excessive and lawsuit-happy.

[Peter11216]

Also, and this is just my slant on things, is that it seems that anymore it has become very "in vogue", especially in New York, to be extremely anti-tobacco. ... It may not be PC for the paper to call out the crusading parents.

Again, maybe this is just the pessimistic in me, but then that actually leads me to question the motives of the parents even more so. Mr. Lyson is in his 70's or so, and just has he and his stroke-ridden wife. The parents have two or three small kids, in a two-bedroom apartment. I'd say that their motives for potentially doing this to antagonize and then buy-out a neighbour is pretty much higher.

It happens that I'm curious about a bunch of the topics raised in this thread and our discussion, real property, smoking legislation, "journalism," and political correctness.

Number one: I think you are quite right that anti-tobacco sentiment is a big deal in New York. However, I would go much further. First, it isn't in vogue, in the sense of a passing fad. I think it is here to stay. Nor is it isolated to New York and California - it is a nation wide phenomena. And as I remarked elsewhere, I would bet that cigarettes will become illegal sooner than later.

Regarding the parents. As I said before, I think your assessment makes sense. What people will do in New York for real estate is disturbing. My last landlord/management company regularly filed bogus motions with the housing court to kick out our 80-some year old upstairs neighbour. He had lived in the building, a good tenant, for at least three decades, including during the 70's and 80's when (I'm told) people were lining up to buy heroin near by, and no one who didn't have to would live in the building. Now that the neighbourhood has taken off, they are ready to simply boot the guy out on the street. (I'll save the law and economics of this for somewhere more appropriate.)

Response three: The New York Post is a right wing newspaper that would take the side of a smoker. The paper is also exactly the type of publication that would blow out of proportion a reasonable law suit. Right wing papers in the United States have gone out of their way to attack the "plaintiffs' bar", that is trial attorneys who sue big business - so any suit that can be made to sound unreasonable inevitably makes it into the news. The book Distorting the Law, does a pretty empirical examination of this pattern of news coverage. The New York Post once ran a cartoon portraying President Obama as an ape, so they have no concerns about so-called "political correctness."

[frenchkiwi]

""The parties agree that a simple 'knock on the door' to discuss any complaint that the parties may have concerning cigar smoke . . . would be preferable to continuing to litigate this matter," the deal says."

noooo, you dooon't say. and paid some lawyers $thousands to arrive at this.

"c'est l'Amerique" as we say in france.