ILNews

COA: Food odors don’t support granting preliminary injunctive relief

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

In a dispute over smells from a produce business drifting into neighboring businesses, the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed that the manager of the shopping plaza is not entitled to preliminary injunctive relief for cooking foods without proper ventilation.

In The Novogroder Companies, Inc., v. Michael J. Massaro, 45A03-1303-PL-98, Dyer Plaza manager George Novogroder filed a complaint for injunctive relief against Michael J. Massaro, who leased commercial space in the plaza for his business The Produce Depot. The fruit and vegetable market also baked bread and served soup on the premises. Novogroder alleged that the smells created a nuisance and annoyed the neighboring businesses.

Michael Sena, owner of exercise studio Pro Fit; and Christie Gill, owner of Posh Paws, complained to Novogroder about the cooking smells. Novogroder and Massaro discussed installing ventilation but couldn’t agree as to who had the responsibility for finding a contractor.

In addition to seeking to enjoin Massaro from cooking until he added ventilation, Novogroder’s complaint also sought ejectment for breach of contract.

After hearing testimony from Sena, Gill, Novogroder and others, the trial court decided that the smells from The Produce Depot did not unreasonably annoy the neighboring owners and occupants. The judge pointed out that the smells from Massaro’s business paled in comparison to those of dog waste and urine that came from the pet grooming facility.

The appellate judges noted that no witness claimed to have perceived a foul odor coming from the business; the complaints were more that they could smell the food, which could produce nausea during exercise. In addition, the testimony of Novogroder and Massaro shows the actual dispute is more of a contract issue than a nuisance issue: who should bear the primary responsibility for installing ventilation.




 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Future generations will be amazed that we prosecuted people for possessing a harmless plant. The New York Times came out in favor of legalization in Saturday's edition of the newspaper.

  2. Well, maybe it's because they are unelected, and, they have a tendency to strike down laws by elected officials from all over the country. When you have been taught that "Democracy" is something almost sacred, then, you will have a tendency to frown on such imperious conduct. Lawyers get acculturated in law school into thinking that this is the very essence of high minded government, but to people who are more heavily than King George ever did, they may not like it. Thanks for the information.

  3. I pd for a bankruptcy years ago with Mr Stiles and just this week received a garnishment from my pay! He never filed it even though he told me he would! Don't let this guy practice law ever again!!!

  4. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  5. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

ADVERTISEMENT