NYS Supreme Court Reverses Lower Court Decision Regarding Leon Behar and Quaker Ridge Golf Club

A NYS Supreme Court has ruled in favor of a Quaker Ridge resident who charged that flying golf balls teed off from the club's second hole were careening into his yard and denying him use of his property. The resident lives on Brittany Close in a home that was built on a piece of the original Winston Estate that borders the Quaker Ridge Golf Club. The club was built in 1918 and the new development went up almost a century later when Gail and Leon Behar Behar bought their home in 2008. Many of the trees that originally shielded the property from the golf course came down during storms or were removed when the Behar's put in a pool.

The case dates back to 2009 when the Behars of 8 Brittany Close in Scarsdale asked the Village of Scarsdale for a variance to construct a 40-foot fence to shield them from flying golf balls. At that time they claimed that during one seven-day stretch 69 golf balls flew into their yard. The Scarsdale Board of Appeals denied the Behars the right to build the fence in March 2010 which neighbors contended would be an eyesore. Behar then retained attorney Julius Cohn who took the case to the State Supreme Court where the judge recommended that the club build not a 40-foot fence, but a 60-foot fence with Behar contributing $10,000 to the cost. In June 2010 the matter went before the Scarsdale Planning Board where the Homeowner's Association objected to a 60-foot fence saying it was unsightly and argued that a 40-foot fence surrounded by trees would suffice.

Until the matter could be resolved use of the second hole of the golf course was restricted.

In November 2010 the Planning Board asked the club to build a 40-foot screen and to plant a stand of 35-foot Armstrong Maple trees on the club's side of the screen. The fence was to stay up for five years until the trees grew in to shield the property. This fence was erected and it appeared that the matter was resolved.

However, apparently the 40-foot fence did not do the trick. Behar says there are still "an inordinate number of balls coming on to his property." He and his attorney Julius Cohn continued to pursue the matter in court and on June 18, 2014 the NYS Supreme Court issued a decision in Behar's favor. The found that Quaker Ridge Club had "failed to reduce the number of golf balls landing on the plantiff's property producing a tangible and appreciate injury to the property that renders its enjoyment especially uncomfortable and inconvenient."

They found that Quaker Ridge was trespassing on the Behar's property as "golf balls have invaded their property with such frequency and over such a long period of time, without Quaker Ridge taking steps to sufficiently abate the situation, so as to amount to willfulness."

They said Quaker Ridge was negligent in it's operation of its golf course in relation to the Behars' property and held ".......that Quaker Ridge breached its duty to exercise reasonable care in the maintenance and use of its property to prevent foreseeable injury that might occur on adjoining property by failing to take precautions in design and location, in the form of play, or in the erection of protective devices as a safeguard against injury to the plaintiffs' property."

The court overturned the previous ruling that blamed the problem on the Behar's decision to remove trees, saying "Contrary to the Supreme Court's determination, Quaker Ridge did not establish that the plaintiffs were bound by a tree preservation plan, or that the plaintiffs' conduct in failing to preserve trees on their property was the sole proximate cause of the condition underlying their claims of nuisance, trespass, and negligence.

As a consequence, the Club is permanently "enjoined from operating its golf course in a manner which constitutes a private nuisance and causes a trespass upon the Behar's property."

How the club is required to avoid being a nuisance is not clear from this ruling and will be left to another court to decide. However, the Behar's can now seek monetary compensation for the loss of the use of their property and these damages will be decided in a subsequent hearing.

Commenting on the decision, Behar said, "Quaker Ridge Golf Club knowingly prevented me from using the outside of my home or over 6 years. Four Appellate Division judges used the word 'willfulness' in describing the actions of the Club. Moreover, those same four judges found Quaker Ridge Golf Club liable for their actions and in breach of their duty to exercise reasonable care to prevent foreseeable injury. This decision has restored my family's faith in our legal system and I am confident that a Westchester jury will ensure that I am adequately compensated for the loss of the use of our home for the last 6 years and for the unnecessary hardship and fear that Quaker Ridge Golf Club intentionally imposed on my family."

Calls to the Club's manager and their attorney's were not returned.