In Copart Industries, Inc. v. Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc., 41 NY2d 564 (1977) the Court of Appeals affirmed the jury verdict that found in the favor of defendant owner of a power plant and dismissed the complaint of plaintiff, a new car business, that complained that noxious emissions from defendant's smokestacks caused damage to the exterior of cars on its premises resulting in the closure of the business. The Copart court stated: One is subject to liability for a private nuisance if his conduct is a legal cause of the invasion of the interest in the private use and enjoyment of land and such invasion is (1) intentional and unreasonable, (2) negligent or reckless, or (3) actionable under the rules governing liability for abnormally dangerous conditions or activities (Restatement, Torts 2d (Tent Draft No. 16), s 822; Prosser, Torts (4th ed.) [As for intentional and unreasonable nuisance,] [t]he elements. .. are: (1) an interference substantial in nature, (2) intentional in origin, (3) unreasonable in character, (4) with a person's property right to use and enjoy land, (5) caused by another's conduct in acting or failure to act. 'An invasion of another's interest in the use and enjoyment of land is intentional when the actor (a) acts for the purpose of causing it; or (b) knows that it is resulting or is substantially certain to result from his conduct' . Copart Industries, Inc. v. Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc., 41 NY2d 564, 569-570, 362 N.E.2d 968, 394 N.Y.S.2d 169 (1977). The dissent in Copart, which would have reversed the jury verdict since opining that the charge mixed negligence and nuisance principles and misled the jury, set forth concepts that are very similar to the weighing of equities that the court must conduct on an application for provisional relief. Nuisance traditionally requires that, after a balancing of the risk-utility considerations, the gravity of harm to a plaintiff be found to outweigh the social usefulness of a defendant's activity (Prosser, Torts (4th ed.), p. 581). For no matter whether an act is intentional or unintentional, there should be no liability unless the social balance of the activity leads to the conclusion that it is unreasonable "An intentional invasion of another's interest in the use and enjoyment of land is unreasonable ... if (a) the gravity of the harm outweighs the utility of the actor's conduct, or (b) the harm caused by the conduct is substantial and the financial burden of compensating for this and other harms does not render infeasible the continuation of the conduct". Copart at 572.