You are here: / / ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER PROPERLY GRANTED A LICENSE PURSUANT TO REAL PROPERTY...

ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER PROPERLY GRANTED A LICENSE PURSUANT TO REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW (RPAPL) 881 TO ENTER NEIGHBOR’S PROPERTY TO PAINT A FENCE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined Supreme Court properly granted petitioner a license pursuant to Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL) 881 to enter respondent’s property to paint petitioner’s fence. The fact that petitioner built the fence too close to the property line did not preclude the granting of the license:

​

… [W]e conclude that, in the absence of a statutory definition, the usual and commonly understood meaning of the words “improvement” and/or “repair” encompasses the painting of the wooden fence in this case … .That interpretation is supported by the legislative history, which establishes that the legislature—in recognition that the nature of abutting properties often requires property owners to access the neighboring property in order to make improvements or repairs to their own—intended to encourage such improvements or repairs by removing unreasonable obstacles to efforts to prevent blight and deterioration … . Stuck v Hickmott, 2018 NY Slip Op 01013, Fourth Dept 2-9-18

REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW (ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER PROPERLY GRANTED A LICENSE PURSUANT TO REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW (RPAPL) 881 TO ENTER NEIGHBOR’S PROPERTY TO PAINT A FENCE (FOURTH DEPT))/FENCES (ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER PROPERLY GRANTED A LICENSE PURSUANT TO REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW (RPAPL) 881 TO ENTER NEIGHBOR’S PROPERTY TO PAINT A FENCE (FOURTH DEPT))/LICENSE (RPAPL 881) (ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER PROPERLY GRANTED A LICENSE PURSUANT TO REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW (RPAPL) 881 TO ENTER NEIGHBOR’S PROPERTY TO PAINT A FENCE (FOURTH DEPT))/REAL PROPERTY  (ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER PROPERLY GRANTED A LICENSE PURSUANT TO REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW (RPAPL) 881 TO ENTER NEIGHBOR’S PROPERTY TO PAINT A FENCE (FOURTH DEPT))

You might also like
SUPPORT MAGISTRATE SHOULD NOT HAVE AWARDED CHILD SUPPORT TO FATHER; MOTHER WAS ENTITLED TO ARREARS UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE (FOURTH DEPT).
RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR DOCTRINE MAY BE APPLIED BASED UPON A PRINCIPAL-AGENT RELATIONSHIP INVOLVING VOLUNTEERS, HERE PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED BY A LADDER WHEN VOLUNTEERS WERE PAINTING THE BUILDING OWNED BY THE DEFENDANT, POINTING TO GAPS IN THE OPPOSING PARTY’S PROOF WILL NOT SUPPORT SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FOURTH DEPT).
MATTER MUST BE SENT BACK FOR RESENTENCING, DESPITE FAILURE TO RAISE THE ISSUE ON APPEAL, BECAUSE THE LENGTH OF PROBATION WAS NOT SPECIFIED (FOURTH DEPT).
THE TAKING BY EMINENT DOMAIN OF PETITIONER’S DECOMMISSIONED ELECTRIC GENERATING STATION AND WATER INTAKE STRUCTURES ON THE NIAGARA RIVER SERVED A PUBLIC PURPOSE; THE DISSENT ARGUED THE TOWN SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO TAKE PROPERTY AND THEN USE IT FOR EXACTLY THE SAME PURPOSE FOR WHICH THE PETITIONER IS NOW USING IT, I.E., ALLOWING BUSINESSES ACCESS TO INEXPENSIVE RAW WATER (FOURTH DEPT).
CITY’S OWN PAPERS RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER FLOODING WAS CAUSED BY A FAILURE TO MAINTAIN A STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM, CITY’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).
BECAUSE PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT AFFIDAVIT IN RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION DID NOT ADDRESS SEVERAL OF THE MALPRACTICE CLAIMS RAISED IN THE PLEADINGS, THOSE CLAIMS WERE DEEMED ABANDONED (FOURTH DEPT).
SECTION EIGHT HOUSING SUBSIDIES ARE NOT ADMINISTERED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, THEREFORE A WELFARE FRAUD PROSECUTION CANNOT BE BASED UPON SECTION EIGHT BENEFITS (FOURTH DEPT).
Regulation Properly Promulgated—Analytical Criteria Described in Some Depth

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

PLAINTIFF’S ASSERTION OF A NEW THEORY OF LIABILITY IN THE PAPERS ANSWERING... BECAUSE THERE WAS ONLY ONE ORIGINAL WILL, NOT MULTIPLE ORIGINALS, THE INABILITY...