Source: https://equicapmag.com/like-a-good-neighbor-rpapl-%C2%A7-881-is-there/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=like-a-good-neighbor-rpapl-%25c2%25a7-881-is-there
Timestamp: 2020-01-23 22:48:05
Document Index: 126918717

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 881', '§ 881', '§ 3309', '§ 881', '§ 881', '§ 881', '§ 881']

Like a Good Neighbor, RPAPL § 881 is There – EQ. Magazine
Daniel Hilpert June 7, 2019
Developer receives underpinning relief through court-ordered access license
WRITTEN BY: Michael A. Smith, Brendan Schmitt and Alexander Berger*
New York courts regularly grant construction access licenses to developers under § 881 of the State’s Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (“RPAPL”), which provides statutory relief to compel the protection of a neighboring property whose owner fails or refuses to consent to such protection under the New York City Building Code (“BC”) § 3309.
Those same courts, however, have been reluctant to do so when the RPAPL § 881 request is for permanent encroachments, such as underpinning. But one recent case in New York County Supreme Court, which involves an affordable housing developer’s attempt to underpin a neighboring property, should be noted because of its explicit rejection of what other courts typically view as controlling precedent.
New York City development projects are often very close to one or more neighboring properties. When that happens, the Building Code requires protection for the adjoining building, which often means a developer needs access onto the adjoining property or over its airspace. For instance, a developer could need to install innocuous equipment to monitor for vibration or cracks; or the developer could need to install sheds or scaffolding, which are ubiquitous in New York City construction.
Sometimes, a developer has to excavate deeper than the neighbor’s foundation, which could require access underneath the neighboring building to install permanent encroachments for support, such as underpinning. “Plan A” is to get consent directly from the neighbor, through a construction license agreement in which both parties negotiate the scope and terms of access that will be permitted. But sometimes private negotiations break down, or a neighbor refuses to negotiate at all. When that happens, developers often move to “Plan B” — seeking a court-ordered access license through RPAPL § 881.
The developer would be required to redesign the project at significant expense if underpinning could not be performed, and valuable basement space would be lost. Underpinning was necessary to prevent the adjoining building from collapsing, and the New York City Department of Buildings (“DOB”) had approved the petitioners’ underpinning plans, following two years of review.
The court further explained that it “does not read the case law to preclude a license for permanent encroachments altogether,” because RPAPL § 881 permits it to grant licenses “as justice requires.” In reconciling the applicable legal authorities, the court determined that “the DOB’s regulations… when read together, clearly anticipate a legal proceeding under RPAPL § 881 to obtain a license for an underpinning. Furthermore, according to the court, “[i]f an underpinning was never allowable, it would have been unnecessary for [previous] decisions to discuss how petitioners failed to carry their burden” with respect to licenses permitting underpinning.
Daniel Hilpert July 6, 2019