You are here: / / IN AN ACTION FOR A LICENSE PURSUANT TO RPAPL 881 TO ALLOW PETITIONER ACCESS...
,

IN AN ACTION FOR A LICENSE PURSUANT TO RPAPL 881 TO ALLOW PETITIONER ACCESS TO RESPONDENTS’ ABUTTING BUILDING TO FACILITATE CONSTRUCTION WORK ON PETITIONER’S BUILDING, RESPONDENTS ARE ENTITLED TO LICENSE FEES, ATTORNEY’S FEES, ENGINEERING FEES, ETC., ASSOCIATED WITH PROTECTING THEIR BUILDING AND TO COMPENSATE FOR INTERFERERENCE WITH THE USE OF THEIR BUILDING, IRRESPECTIVE OF WHETHER THERE IS ANY DAMAGE TO RESPONDENTS’ BUILDING (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Acosta, affirmed the grant of a license to petitioner, pursuant to RPAPL 881, to enter respondents’ abutting property to protect the abutting property during construction work on petitioner’s building, but vacated or reduced some of the specific costs and/or damages awarded. The First Department noted that attorney’s fees, license fees and engineering fees, etc., associated with the respondents’ efforts to protect their building and the loss of use and enjoyment of their building during construction are properly assessed to the petitioner:

What petitioner seeks is essentially to compel respondents to grant it a license on its own terms. However, as we have recognized, because “[t]he respondent to an 881 petition has not sought out the intrusion and does not derive any benefit from it . . . [e]quity requires that the owner compelled to grant access should not have to bear any costs resulting from the access” … . Thus, the grant of licenses pursuant to RPAPL 881 often warrants the award of contemporaneous license fees … . Contrary to petitioner’s contention that a license fee constitutes a windfall unless there are some actual damages, such as lost business, we have found that a license fee is warranted “where the granted license will entail substantial interference with the use and enjoyment of the neighboring property during the [license] period, thus decreasing the value of the property during that time” … .

Similarly, a compulsory licensor should be entitled to reasonable attorneys’ and engineering fees … . Matter of Panasia Estate, Inc. v 29 W. 19 Condominium, 2022 NY Slip Op 00975, First Dept 2-15-22

You might also like
SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED AN ACTION TO ENFORCE A MONEY JUDGMENT OBTAINED IN THE PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA (PRC) ON THE IMPLICIT GROUND THE DEFENDANTS WERE NOT AFFORDED DUE PROCESS IN THE PRC; THE US STATE DEPARTMENT DOCUMENTS UPON WHICH SUPREME COURT’S RULING WAS BASED DO NOT CONSTITUTE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE; THE COMPLAINT SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED DEFENDANTS HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD, WERE REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL AND HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO APPEAL IN THE PRC ACTION (FIRST DEPT).
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION REGULATING PROTESTS BY ANIMAL RIGHTS ADVOCATES AGAINST A CENTRAL PARK HORSE-DRAWN CARRIAGE SIGHTSEEING BUSINESS UPHELD, BUFFER ZONE PROVISION MODIFIED TO COMPORT WITH FIRST AMENDMENT (FIRST DEPT).
SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE ON THE GROUND THE DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS UNOPPOSED; PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION THE PARTIES STIPULATED TO AN ADJOURNED DATE; LEAVE TO APPEAL GRANTED IN THE INTERST OF JUSTICE; SUMMARY JUDGMENT DENIED ON THE MERITS (FIRST DEPT).
HEARSAY INSUFFICIENT TO DEFEAT PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1) AND 241(6) ACTION; THE INDEMNIFICATION AND CONTRIBUTION CLAIM WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED BECAUSE PLAINTIFF DID NOT SUFFER GRAVE INJURY WITHIN THE MEANING OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW 11 (FIRST DEPT).
Plaintiffs Entitled to Damages Re: City’s Failure to Timely Notify Plaintiffs of the Death of a Family Member
Plaintiff, a Monitor in a Golf Program, Assumed the Risk of Injury in a Golf-Cart Accident
THE WRENCH WHICH FELL AND STRUCK PLAINTIFF COULD HAVE BEEN TETHERED TO THE WORKER WHO DROPPED IT; PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION; PLAINTIFF NEED NOT SUBMIT AN EXPERT AFFIDAVIT (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT BREACHED THE CONTRACT BY FAILING TO COMPLY WITH THE NOTICE-TO-CURE PROVISION BEFORE TERMINATING IT; THE REASON FOR TERMINATION, FAULTY WORK, WAS NOT EXEMPT FROM THE NOTICE-TO-CURE REQUIREMENT (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

PLAINTIFF, A DISSOLVED CORPORATION, PROPERLY PURSUED CLAIMS AND LIABILITIES... A STATEMENT FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AUTHENTICATING PHOTOGRAPHS...