She noted that he could observe who was in the pool or how they looked in their bathing suits.
However, she highlighted a crucial difference.
She stated there is a difference between seeing something and having a camera photograph it.
She compared it to feeling invaded by a drone taking pictures of one's house.
Defendant's Consultations
Mr. Paytas stated he checked with his city manager and his attorney.
He claimed both advised him he did not have to move the cameras.
Judge Judy dismissed these consultations.
She stated, "I don't care what you checked with."
She emphasized her own judgment on the matter.
Plaintiff's Lights
The plaintiff installed multiple lights.
Mr. Paytas claimed these lights interfered with his cameras.
He said they prevented his cameras from taking pictures.
Judge Judy responded, "Oh, that's too bad."
Prior Harassment Claims
Mr. Paytas claimed the plaintiff harassed him prior to 2017.
He alleged she would swear while drunk during his parties.
He also claimed she played loud music.
He further stated she displayed an offensive rubber glove on a broomstick in her yard.
Judge Judy asked if he ever filed a noise complaint.
Mr. Paytas admitted he did not.
Judge Judy's View on Neighborly Conduct
Judge Judy stated that neighbors are entitled to peacefully enjoy their property.
She suggested that if one's children irritate a neighbor, one should try to deflect that.
She explained that if the plaintiff was creating a disturbance, Mr. Paytas should have discussed it with her.
He could have asked her to turn down the music.
If that failed, he could have filed a noise complaint.
Judge Judy's Ruling
Judge Judy told Mr. Paytas, "She's right."
She instructed him to move the camera recording the plaintiff's backyard.
She stated, "That's what I think."
She dismissed his claims about harassment.
She characterized his stance as "obstinate."
Judge Judy reiterated that she did not care what his attorney or city manager thought.
She also dismissed the opinion of the police officer who responded to the call.
Expectation of Privacy
Judge Judy explained that the plaintiff has no expectation of privacy in the front portion of her yard.
This is because it abuts a public street and public walkway.
However, she has an expectation of privacy in her fenced backyard.
Judge Judy concluded that Mr. Paytas was interfering with that expectation.
She stated he should move the camera.
Verdict and Outcome
Judge Judy ruled in favor of the plaintiff.
She ordered Mr. Paytas to pay the plaintiff $1,000.
She also ordered him to move the camera that records her backyard.
Mr. Paytas's counterclaim was dismissed.
Judge Judy stated she would award money until he moved the camera.
She concluded the case by saying, "We're done."
The plaintiff expressed that it was a "very good decision" and provided "closure."
She mentioned that an assistant prosecutor had sent Mr. Paytas a letter telling him to move the camera.
The plaintiff described Mr. Paytas as someone who "don't listen to nobody."