Justice Joan M. Kenney
In a case involving noise and vibrations in a cooperative building, tenant Musk alleged the noises at the center of her claim were caused by renovations. Musk sought a declaration that defendants were responsible for remediation of the vibration and noise problem in her unit, as well as for damages she suffered as a result. Defendant general contractor argued Musk’s negligence claims against it must be dismissed, as it did not owe her a duty of care and did not proximately cause harm to her or her property. Musk alleged the general contractor had a duty to her because it launched a force of harm by using powder-actuated nails in attaching the frame of her neighbor’s air conditioning unit to the chimney wall, thereby creating holes that caused noise and vibration in her apartment. The court found an issue of fact as to proximate causation, noting that Musk submitted inspection reports suggesting that the air conditioner installation caused the harm she alleged. The court, however, granted the general contractor’s motion to dismiss the nuisance claim against it, finding that Musk failed to raise an issue of fact as to whether the general contractor intentionally interfered with her interest or enjoyment of her apartment.