Document

Lawsuit filed against Invenergy in relation to Orangeville Wind Farm

Nearly 60 New York residents from Wyoming County are listed as plaintiffs in this lawsuit filed against Invenergy for lost quality of life and property value in relation to the Orangeville Wind Farm. The complaint was filed in early-August with the State Supreme Court in Wyoming County. Attorney Richard Lippes, of Lippes & Lippes in Buffalo, is representing the residents. The text of the complaint is posted below and can be accessed by clicking the link on this page. The names of the plaintiffs have been omitted from the filing.

This action is brought in the County of Wyoming because of designation made by Plaintiff.

DATED: Buffalo, New York
August 1-,2014

LIPPES & LIPPES
Office and Post Office Address
1109 Delaware Avenue
Buffalo, New York 14209
(716) 884-4800
Attorneys for Plaintiff

Plaintiffs,

vs. COMPLAINT

INVENERG Y LLC Index No.: _
One South Wacker Drive
Suite 1900
Chicago, IL 60606

Defendant.

FACTS

The following paragraphs represent the entirety of the complaint before the Court with the exception of paragraphs 1 - 30. The omitted paragraphs list the names and addresses of the Plaintiffs.

31. Upon information and belief, Defendant Invenergy LLC ("Invenergy"), was and is a domestic corporation, authorized to do business in the State of New York.

32. Upon information and belief, the Defendant Invenergy, has its primary office located at One South Wacker Drive, Suite 1900, City of Chicago, State of Illinois.

33. Upon information and belief, Defendant Invenergy created and owns a wind energy operation, including wind turbines on property located within 800-1500 feet from the properties owned by Plaintiffs.

34. Upon the construction of and operation of the wind turbines, Defendant has destroyed  Plaintiffs' rural viewshed from their property.

35. Upon the construction of and operation of the wind turbines, Defendant has caused constant noise, vibrations and flicker to enter Plaintiffs' property, significantly impacting the health and wellbeing of the Plaintiffs and causing them to become sick, sore, lame and disabled.

36. Upon the construction of and operation of the wind turbines, Defendant has caused constant noise and vibrations significantly diminishing the value of Plaintiffs' property and home.

37. Upon information and belief, Defendant's wind turbines have violated, on a regular basis, town noise ordinances that restrict the noise levels to 50 decibels.

38. Moreover, Defendant's operation of such wind turbines caused noise pollution, vibrations, and flicker to occur, creating a nuisance and interfering with Plaintiffs' exclusive possessory interest in their property, and causing Plaintiffs' quality of life to be significantly diminished.

39. In spite of being informed of the nuisance condition created by the Defendant, the Defendant has refused to either abate the nuisance or otherwise engage in any mitigating measures, intentionally continuing the nuisance that they have created, causing a significant diminishment of the Plaintiffs' use and enjoyment of their property, quality of life, health, value of Plaintiffs' property and economic wellbeing.

AS AND FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION: TRESPASS

40. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation set forth in paragraph "1" through "39" inclusive of this Complaint with the same force and effect as set forth in total herein.

41. Defendant has intentionally caused noise pollution, vibrations, and flicker to enter Plaintiffs' property, causing Plaintiffs to become sore, sick, lame and disabled, diminishing Plaintiffs' property value, and interfering with Plaintiffs' exclusive possessory interests in their property.

42, By reason of the foregoing, Defendant has caused and continues to cause a trespass upon Plaintiffs' property and has interfered and continues to interfere with Plaintiffs' exclusive possessory interests in their property.

43. By reason of the foregoing, Defendant has caused damage to Plaintiffs' real
property as well as causing a loss in value of Plaintiffs' property and has adversely affected
Plaintiffs' health, wellbeing, and quality of life.

44. Wherefore, Plaintiffs seek damages as indicated in the Ad Damnum Clause of this
Complaint.

AS AND FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION: NUISANCE

45. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation set forth in paragraph " 1" through "44" inclusive of this Complaint with the same force and effect as set forth in total herein.

46. By reason of the actions and omissions of the Defendant alleged herein, Defendant has created a nuisance that has substantially interfered with the use, enjoyment and value which Plaintiffs are entitled to in their property and has diminished Plaintiffs' health, wellbeing, and quality of life.

47. Defendant's interference with the property of Plaintiffs continues to this day.

48. Defendant's interference with the property of the Plaintiffs was and is unreasonable in character.

49. Wherefore, Plaintiffs seek damages as indicated in the Ad Damnum Clause of this Complaint.

AS AND FOR A THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION: NEGLIGENCE

50. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation set forth in paragraph "1" through "49" inclusive of this Complaint with the same force and effect as set forth in total herein.

51. At all times herein mentioned, Defendant knew or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known that its actions and activities were done in such a manner to cause damage to the Plaintiffs' health, quality of life, and property.

52. At all times herein mentioned, Defendant knew or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known, the actions and activities carried out on its property or during its business operation would cause excessive noise, vibration, and flicker effect to surrounding homes and properties.

53. Defendant has a duty to conduct its activities in a manner as to not cause material and substantial annoyance and harm to its neighboring properties and their persons and in their enjoyment of their properties.

54. Defendants, by its methods and use of operations of its business, did materially breach that duty, which continues to this day.

55. The aforesaid occurrence was not caused or due to the carelessness or negligence on the part of the Plaintiffs.

56. Defendant owed Plaintiffs a duty of reasonable care in the manner in which it operated its wind energy activities, fell below such standard of reasonable care, and as a result of the foregoing Plaintiffs sustained damage to their health, property, and their quality of life has been diminished.

57. Moreover, as a result of the foregoing, Plaintiffs have sustained a diminution in their real property value.

58. Wherefore, Plaintiffs seek damages as indicated in the Ad Damnum Clause of this Complaint.

AS AND FOR A FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION: RES IPSA LOQUITUR

59. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation set forth in paragraph "1" through "58" inclusive of this Complaint with the same force and effect as set forth in total herein.

60. At all times herein mentioned, Defendant knew that its actions and activities in installing and operating wind turbines adjacent to the properties of Plaintiffs would cause damage to Plaintiffs and their properties.

61. The wind turbines were and are under the exclusive care and control of the Defendant.

62. The aforesaid occurrence did in fact result in Plaintiffs' diminished value in property, and adversely affected Plaintiffs' health, wellbeing, and quality of life.

63. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant' s negligent, careless and reckless actions, Plaintiffs sustained damage to their real property, economic wellbeing, and their quality of life has been diminished.

64. Wherefore, Plaintiffs seek damages as indicated in the Ad Damnum Clause of this Complaint.

AD DAMNUM CLAUSE

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against the Defendant as follows:

1. The sum of $20,000,000.00 to compensate the Plaintiffs for their personal injuries, lost quality of life and loss in property value;

2. The sum of $20,000,000.00 as punitive damages;

3. The costs of this action;

4. Any such further and other relief that the Court may deem just and proper.

-RICHARD J. LIPPES, ESQ.
LIPPES & LIPPES

Orangeville-invenergy-complaint_thumb
Orangeville Invenergy Complaint

Download file (2.69 MB) pdf

AUG 1 2014
http://www.windaction.org/posts/41275-lawsuit-filed-against-invenergy-in-relation-to-orangeville-wind-farm
back to top