You are here: / / PETITIONER’S APPLICATION FOR ACCESS TO RESPONDENT’S NEIGHBORING...

PETITIONER’S APPLICATION FOR ACCESS TO RESPONDENT’S NEIGHBORING PROPERTY PURSUANT TO RPAPL 881 SHOIULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; MATTER REMITTED TO DETERMINE WHETHER LESS INTRUSIVE METHODS FOR ROOF PROTECTION OF RESPONDENT’S PROPERTY COULD BE USED TO FACILITATE FACADE WORK ON PETITIONER’S BUILDING (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined all the relevant factors had not been considered when granting petitioner’s application for access to respondent’s neighboring property to install roof and terrace protection related to work on the facade of petitioner’s building. The matter was remitted for a determination whether less intrusive methods of roof protection could be used:

Supreme Court improvidently granted petitioner’s application for access to respondent’s neighboring property in order to effectuate repairs to petitioner’s property pursuant to RPAPL 881. “Although the determination of whether to award a license fee is discretionary, in that RPAPL 881 provides that a ‘license shall be granted by the court in an appropriate case upon such terms as justice requires,’ the grant of licenses pursuant to RPAPL 881 often warrants the award of contemporaneous license fees” … . This is because “‘the respondent to an 881 petition has not sought out the intrusion and does not derive any benefit from it. . .Equity requires that the owner compelled to grant access should not have to bear any costs resulting from the access'” … . Furthermore, “[c]ourts are required to balance the interests of the parties and should issue a license when necessary, under reasonable conditions, and where the inconvenience to the adjacent property owner is relatively slight compared to the hardship of his neighbor if the license is refused” … .

In granting access, Supreme Court permitted petitioner to designate a controlled access zone and to place roof protection on respondent’s terraces. The roof protection petitioner seeks to install is placed directly on top of the floors of respondent’s terraces and according to respondent would completely prohibit the tenants of the terraced apartments from using any portion of their terraces. Prior to the granting petitioner’s application, Supreme Court must consider and resolve the issue as to whether there are less intrusive and equally effective methods of roof protection … . Matter of 400 E57 Fee Owner LLC v 405 E. 56th St. LLC, 2021 NY Slip Op 02587, First Dept 4-29-21

 

You might also like
WHETHER THE CORPORATE VEIL SHOULD BE PIERCED IS A FACT-BASED DETERMINATION GENERALLY NOT SUITED FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; THE FINDINGS BY THE MOTION COURT WERE NOT SUPPORTED BY UNDISPUTED FACTS; SUMMARY JUDGMENT ALLOWING THE CORPORTE VEIL TO BE PIERCED REVERSED (FIRST DEPT).
PROVIDING WRITTEN INSTRUCTIONS TO THE JURY OVER DEFENDANT’S OBJECTION REQUIRED REVERSAL AND A NEW TRIAL, HOT LIQUID CAN BE A DANGEROUS INSTRUMENT WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE PENAL LAW (FIRST DEPT).
Unsafe Access to Roof Supported Summary Judgment
QUESTION OF FACT RAISED ABOUT WHETHER THE PROFFERED REASON FOR PLAINTIFF’S TERMINATION WAS PRETEXTUAL, PLAINTIFF WAS ON MEDICAL LEAVE BECAUSE OF BRAIN TUMORS, EMPLOYER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
IN THIS CIVIL RIGHTS ACTION, PRIOR APPELLATE RULING THAT THE SEARCH WARRANT WAS INVALID BECAME THE LAW OF THE CASE; TRIAL COURT’S FINDING THE WARRANT VALID AND GRANTING A DIRECTED VERDICT IN FAVOR OF THE POLICE REVERSED.
PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED IN A WORK AREA ON THE 16TH FLOOR USED FOR RENOVATION WORK ON THE 41ST FLOOR, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE 16TH FLOOR WAS A CONSTRUCTION AREA WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 241 (6), THE COURT NOTED A LESSEE IS AN OWNER WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 241 (6) (FIRST DEPT).
OSTENSIBLE NON EMPLOYER WAS NOT A JOINT EMPLOYER SUBJECT TO EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION LIABILITY; CRITERIA FOR JOINT EMPLOYER STATUS EXPLAINED.
CITY WAS IMMUNE FROM SUIT BASED UPON THE HANDLING OF A DECEASED PERSON DURING HURRICANE SANDY AND NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WAS DEMONSTRATED WITH THE CITY (FIRST DEPT).

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

THE PROCESS SERVER IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION MET THE DUE DILIGENCE REQUIREMENTS... PLAINTIFF WAS STRUCK BY A PIECE OF SHEETROCK, THE LADDER HE WAS STANDING ON...