Posted on 01/24/2004 9:17:05 AM PST by mylife
Couple demands halt to neighbor's smoking Restraining order sought over nuisance to health By Phil Trexler Beacon Journal staff writer
Robert Zangrando has had it up to his chest, nose and eyes with his neighbor's smoking and he's taking her to court to get her to quit.
Zangrando, a retired University of Akron history professor who lives in Stow, was in Summit County court Thursday with his wife and lawyer.
Together they are seeking a restraining order against his next-door neighbor, Nicole Kuder, 28, that would prohibit her from smoking outdoors within 30 feet of her condominium.
Zangrando, 71, and his wife, UA instructor Lisa A. Pace, contend the smoking affects their health and has become a nuisance.
Before the hearing, Kuder said, ``I have tried to accommodate them, and this is the result.''
The couple's attorney, Ed Gilbert, called the situation an emergency and wanted Common Pleas Judge Marvin Shapiro to rule immediately on the restraining order request. Shapiro declined because Kuder came to court without an attorney.
Akron attorney Tom Adgate was retained by Kuder just before the hearing and was unable to attend. Shapiro delayed ruling until the hearing resumes Tuesday with Kuder and her attorney.
Kuder and Zangrando have been neighbors in a condominium complex on Higby Drive for about two years. Their two-story units are separated only by a shared wall. They share a front porch, and a wooden fence separates their back doors.
Zangrando said his neighbor's cigarette smoking is apparent whenever he opens a window or steps outside his home. He said the fumes compromise his health, causing him to wheeze and cough.
He said he suffers from lung problems, including emphysema, and has had asthma in the past. He said the smoking is such that he is reluctant to let his dog or two cats outside.
``It hits you right away, the minute you walk out the door. It catches me, I start coughing, I know she's smoking, I can see she's smoking visually, and I can get the effects of the smoke when I inhale what should be fresh air in my own back patio,'' Zangrando told the judge.
Kuder rents the condo she and her family live in and is not permitted to smoke inside the unit. Zangrando and Pace have owned their unit since marrying in 1996.
``It's a constant reality. She's out there smoking, and I have been appealing to her since she first moved: Please, if you're going smoke, would you move away from the house because the fumes come in our house, and we no longer have discretionary use of our house,'' Zangrando told the judge.
He said he has tried for more than a year to convince Kuder to smoke elsewhere, to no avail. He said he tried to reach an agreement in October, but Kuder and her husband, who does not smoke, refused to sign.
Kuder said Zangrando wanted her to walk to a nearby parking lot to smoke. She said he snoops on her, photographs her movements and has yelled at her to ``go, kill my family'' with her cigarettes.
``I tried to be nice and go out back and compromise, but they constantly harass us,'' Kuder said outside court. ``There have been times when I've had friends over, and he comes out screaming at us. It bothers me, but at the same time, I try to be a respectful smoker.''
As an attorney, I would think that you would be aware that whether or not the retired professor has legal recourse has yet to be determined by the court. The court may find in favor of the plaintiff, the defendant, or (probably less likely) simply dismiss the case on either legal or jusisdictional grounds. Laws regarding smoking and so called 'smokers rights' are in a state of change. Hopefully, the losing party will take it through the appellate process and get a valid legal precedent, no matter who wins.
Well, apparently she is under the impression that SHE has the right to choose whether or not to smoke. Maybe she was brought up to believe that she lives in a free country.
Maybe I am old fashioned, but I thought our freedoms included being smelly and stupid without our neighbor's interference.
Unless the wind carries the smoke up and then down right next door, I tend to think this man is a jerk. How many fireplaces in the neighborhood? How many grills? Does he cook on a grill? Has he taken any neighbors to court who cook on grills?
I would bet this is not the first issue he has had with this neighbor.
It doesn't really matter. They put the pets spin on their pathetic case to cover the winter months - really October to April - when they obviously will have the doors and windows closed against the cold and thus suffer precisely nothing from the alleged deadly tobacco odors.
Ya see, they must still open the door to let the cats and dogs out (in 17 degree temps) and when they do, they're assaulted with a cloud of venal tobacco smoke. Also the pets have to walk through it as well (boo hoo).
In addition, they'd have to assert that the pets are completely uncontrollable. They can't possibly wait one minute for the deadly tobacco smoke to disperse, and they also need to explain why the pets have such an uncanny habit of wanting to go out only when the defendant is on the porch smoking for three minutes.
So the reasons for mentioning the pets are to (a) justify the emergency restraining order, (b) to surmount the problem that in fact the doors and windows are actually closed from October through April and therefore the smoking is not really a problem at all, and (c) to raise the completely bogus (and irrelevant) implication that the pets - not the plaintiff - are the actual victims of second-hand smoke during the winter (I guess Cranky would argue that his "worry" about his pets is sufficient grounds for his claim).
See how pathetic and duplicitous this guy really is? Not merely a crank, but also a liar, willing to drag these ridiculous fabrications before a court of law. Add this to the photo-taking and yelling, and you have a clear picture of a man who'll stop at nothing - even lying in court - to control his neighbor.
Not to mention the fact that people with emphysema can rarely abide living in the same house with pets. Same for asthma. That's one of the first things the doc will tell you to limit or get rid of all together.
This from a quitting smoker. Only 2 cigs today! But LOTS of coffee, LOL.
You know this for a fact, Doctor R9?
Presumably in the midst of his yelling and photographing and legal strategizing over the last two years, the good professor had the opportunity to have his physician prepare an attestation that he indeed suffers these medical problems. And of course he's compiled all of his medical bills from the last two years, showing that he does indeed receive treatment for these problems. Yes?
No, I don't think so. It's all just as fabricated as the rest of his case. The guy is an unmitigated liar. Hopefully he'll be charged with perjury.
Or his other neighbors. He's a nut, the kind of crank who nabs the little kids' kickballs when they land on his front lawn.
BINGO BOB!
None, because pneumonia isn't caused by cold weather anymore than the common cold is.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.