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
FATHER DEPRIVED OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL IN THIS MAINTENANCE AND SUPPORT ARREARS PROCEEDING, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (FOURTH DEPT).
People Did Not Meet Burden of Going Forward at Suppression Hearing
DEFENDANT CITY PAVED A DRIVEWAY CONNECTING A ROAD TO A PAVED PARK PATH, DEFENDANT DRIVER DROVE UP THE DRIVEWAY TO THE PAVED PATH WHERE PLAINTIFFS HAD BEEN WALKING THEIR DOGS, MAINTENANCE OF A PARK IS A PROPRIETARY NOT GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION, NO GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY, CITY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT RELIED SOLELY ON GAPS IN PLAINTIFFS’ PROOF AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED (FOURTH DEPT).
Supreme Court Properly Annulled New York Division of Human Rights’ Determination there Was No Probable Cause to Believe the School District Discriminated against Petitioner When It Refused to Hire Her Because of Her Anticipated Absence (Due to Pregnancy)
IN DETERMINING WHETHER THE PEOPLE’S CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH THEIR DISCOVERY OBLIGATIONS WAS VALID THE MOTION COURT RULED THE PEOPLE HAD ACTED IN GOOD FAITH; THE MATTER WAS REMITTED FOR THE APPLICATION OF THE CORRECT STANDARD: WHETHER THE PEOPLE ACTED WITH DUE DILIGENCE AND MADE REASONABLE EFFORTS TO SATISFIY THEIR OBLIGATIONS (FOURTH DEPT).
A TEACHER IS NOT A PERSON LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CARE OF A STUDENT WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE SOCIAL SERVICES LAW; THEREFORE A SCHOOL DISTRICT IS NOT OBLIGATED TO REPORT SUSPECTED CHILD ABUSE BY A TEACHER (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANT WAS NOT ADVISED THE SENTENCE TO WHICH HE AGREED WHEN PLEADING GUILTY WAS FIXED REGARDLESS OF THE OUTCOME OF THE SECOND VIOLENT FELONY OFFENDER HEARING, PLEA VACATED (FOURTH DEPT).
Evidence of Headaches Did Not Raise an Issue of Fact Re: “Serious Injury”

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...