Judge 'restrains' Winged Foot par-3
From the files of WHAT THE #$^&$#(%!!!! …
A State Supreme Court judge in Westchester County, N.Y., has issued a temporary restraining order against storied Winged Foot Golf Club, banning play on the par-3 sixth hole on its East Course. The judge issued the order after a Winged Foot neighbor sued the club, claiming his home’s proximity to the sixth green “has opened him up to so many errant golf balls that it has caused a ‘life-threatening condition’ for him, his two young children and his dog,” The New York Times reported.
The case was first reported Tuesday in the New York Post’s gossip pages, which tells you a lot about this story.
More from the Times:
The neighbor, Anthony Pecora, “has suffered $14,000 in damage to his home from errant golf balls, including five broken windows this year alone, said Julius Cohn, his lawyer. He said Mr. Pecora, who moved into the house in 2003, began complaining about the errant shots in 2006, when the club cut down several trees between his house and the sixth green.
‘He has golf balls raining down on his home—his children can’t even walk on the property,’ Cohn said. ‘He has pails and pails of golf balls,’ he said, adding that Mr. Pecora’s 14-year-old dog ate a golf ball last year and required emergency surgery, costing $3,344.40.”
I don’t want to pass any rash judgments here, but buying a home on a golf course and then suing the club for balls in your yard? That’s sort of like living on a game reserve and filing a restraining order against the lions.
Donald Trump, a Winged Foot member who knows a thing or two about bad real estate decisions, told the Times that the Winged Foot members were stunned by the court order. “To close a hole, it’s a sad day for the club,” The Donald said. “I’m thinking maybe I’ll visit the gentleman. I’d love to go and mediate it.”
Anthony ... you're fired!
Posted by: You | Oct 18, 2008 9:57:17 PM
I think it's been said enough here: Put the damn trees back.
Posted by: Warren Taylor | Oct 16, 2008 1:05:52 PM
Apparently,from this article, the club changed the original conditions when they removed trees protecting the homeowners property from straying golf balls. There, fore I believe that the club should be held liable
Posted by: David Jones | Oct 16, 2008 1:03:59 PM
Until I read this piece my initial reaction was "what did he expect when he bought the house?". Now I know, he expected the trees to stay in place.
PLEASE, Donald, do NOT go see this man. We don't want Rosie in the limelight again!
Posted by: Nuts4GolfinNM | Oct 16, 2008 9:24:04 AM
As someone who knows what it feels like to be hit with a ball, I completely concur. The trees were in place when he bought the home, no problem. The trees are gone, big problem. The club should be required to put up nets in their place.
Posted by: Golf nut | Oct 15, 2008 12:09:54 PM
I think the guy has a good case. He bought the home on the course, with the trees in place. THE COURSE then cut several trees down making his house and property now in the line of fire of errant shots.
THE COURSE has altered the make-up of the surrounding property and it has impacted the homeowner. It is the COURSE'S responsibility.