You are here: / / THEORIES OF LIABILITY FOR DAMAGE TO A PARTY WALL EXPLAINED.

THEORIES OF LIABILITY FOR DAMAGE TO A PARTY WALL EXPLAINED.

The Second Department, affirming the denial of a motion to dismiss counterclaims, in an action stemming from alleged damage to a party wall, explained the law of party walls:

While one who hires an independent contractor generally will not be liable for the contractor’s negligence, an exception exists where the employer has a nondelegable duty to ensure the work is safely performed … . With regard to two owners whose properties abut the same party wall, each owns so much of the wall as stands upon his or her own lot, both “having an easement in the other strip for purposes of the support of his own building” … . “Although the land covered by a party wall remains the several property of the owner of each half, . . . the title of each owner is qualified by the easement to which the other is entitled” … . “[N]either owner may subject a party wall to a use for the benefit of its own property that renders the wall unavailable for similar use for the benefit of the other property” … .

Liability may also be imposed on a property owner where, during renovation, the party wall is altered to the detriment of the adjoining property owner (Schneider v 44-84 Realty Corp. , 169 Misc 249 [Sup Ct, Bronx County 1938], affd 257 App Div 932 [1st Dept 1939]). In Schneider , the court explained that the defendant who tore down its house on one side of the party wall “could not withdraw the wall or change its condition to the injury of plaintiffs or plaintiffs’ property without being liable in damages for any injury that might accrue to the plaintiffs thereby” (id. at 252). Moreover, “[e]ven if the defendant proceeded with all skill and diligence it is still liable to the plaintiffs for any injuries sustained in consequence of the intended alterations to the wall and to the support which the building on defendant’s premises gave to the plaintiffs’ property” (id. at 253). Ehrenberg v Regier, 2016 NY Slip Op 05938, 1st Dept 9-1-16

REAL PROPERTY (THEORIES OF LIABILITY FOR DAMAGE TO A PARTY WALL EXPLAINED)/PARTY WALLS (REAL PROPERTY, THEORIES OF LIABILITY FOR DAMAGE TO A PARTY WALL EXPLAINED)

You might also like
A LAWSUIT ALLEGING NONCONSENSUAL SEXUAL TOUCHING PURSUANT TO THE ADULT SURVIVORS ACT (CPLR 214-J) NEED NOT ALLEGE PLAINTIFF’S INTIMATE PARTS WERE TOUCHED BY THE DEFENDANT TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION; IT IS ENOUGH THAT THE COMPLAINT ALLEGE PLAINTIFF WAS TOUCHED UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH AFFORDED THE DEFENDANT SEXUAL GRATIFICATION (SECOND DEPT).
REMAINDER INTERESTS WHICH CAN ONLY BE DIVESTED BY A POWER OF APPOINTMENT ARE VESTED REMAINDER INTERESTS.
Doctrine of Res Judicata Did Not Preclude Lawsuit Against Defendant Building Inspector In His Individual Capacity After Summary Judgment (In Defendant’s Favor) In an Action Against Defendant In His Official Capacity—Transactional Approach to Res Judicata Explained
SCHOOL EMPLOYEE’S NEGLIGENCE ACTION AGAINST THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION IS NOT GOVERNED BY THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT (CBA), NO NEED TO EXHAUST ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES; DENIAL OF MEDICAL LEAVE DID NOT HAVE RES JUDICATA OR COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL EFFECT (SECOND DEPT).
Prosecutorial Misconduct and Defense Counsel’s Ineffectiveness Required Reversal
ALTHOUGH THE COURT HAD, IN 2018, GRANTED MOTHER’S APPLICATION TO RELOCATE WITH THE CHILD TO CONNECTICUT, THE COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DECIDED IT DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION TO DETERMINE FATHER’S PETITION TO MODIFY THE CUSTODY ORDER WITHOUT HOLDING A HEARING ABOUT THE CHILD’S CONNECTIONS TO NEW YORK (SECOND DEPT).
DESIGNATING ATTORNEY AS STANDBY COUNSEL WAS INSUFFICIENT, DEFENDANT’S REFUSAL TO BE REPRESENTED BY THE SUBSTITUTE COUNSEL WHO APPEARED FOR SENTENCING REQUIRED THE COURT TO CONDUCT A SEARCHING INQUIRY TO BE SURE THE DEFENDANT UNDERSTOOD THE CONSEQUENCES OF REPRESENTING HIMSELF (SECOND DEPT).
DOCUMENTS RELIED UPON BY PLAINTIFF IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT MEET THE CRITERIA FOR THE BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE, DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED IN REPLY DID NOT SATISFY PLAINTIFF’S BURDEN TO MAKE OUT A PRIMA FACIE CASE (SECOND 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

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PROPERTY MANAGER LAUNCHED AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM WHEN... CAUSES OF ACTION FOR BOTH CONSTRUCTIVE AND ACTUAL FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCE STATED,...