Puritan Holding Co. v. Holloschitz Supreme Court of New York, County of New York, 1975. Facts: P owned a building on W. 93rd St. in Manhattan, which was situated across the street from a building owned by D, which itself had been abandoned and fell into disrepair. A real estate expert testified that the state of D’s building had caused the value of P’s property to depreciate between $30-$35k and that it would be impossible for P to obtain a mortgage given the state of D’s property. Procedural History: P brought suit alleging that D’s allowance of the building to fall into its state of disrepair constituted a nuisance and sought damages in the amount of the difference in P’s property value. Issue: Is an abandoned building in a neighborhood with a marked upward trend in property values a nuisance such that a P owning neighboring property is entitled to the difference in that property’s value caused by the nuisance? Holding: Yes. What constitutes a nuisance is highly fact-dependent, such that an activity may be a nuisance in one neighborhood, but may not be so in another neighborhood. Reasoning: Given the fact that the neighborhood in question was experiencing a rise in property values and that D’s failure to adequately guard/seal the abandoned building (allowing derelicts to move in) violated a city code, it is only fair to award P the difference in value of P’s property caused by D.