The following numbered papers read on this order to show cause and petition for an order directing respondents to remove or redirect their cameras. PAPERS NUMBERED Amended Order to Show Cause- Verified Petition-Exhibits EF 1-9 Answering Affidavits-Exhibits EF 11 Replying EF 12 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. Accordingly, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED that this petition is denied and the proceeding is dismissed. Dated: August 19, 2019
