In the dynamic landscape of NY real estate and construction law, access to neighboring properties often becomes a critical issue. A recent case, Thomas Anthony Holdings LLC v. Goodbody, 216 A.D.3d 538 (2023), underscores the complexities involved in securing access under RPAPL § 881 and highlights the court’s approach in balancing competing property rights.

Case Background

The petitioner, Thomas Anthony Holdings LLC, sought a temporary license under RPAPL § 881 to enter an adjoining property owned by respondents, Bridget Goodbody et al. The purpose of the requested access was to install temporary overhead, rooftop, and chimney protections to complete facade renovations in compliance with New York City’s Building Code.

Despite extended negotiations, the respondents refused to grant access, prompting the petitioner to file a motion in Supreme Court, New York County. However, the trial court, presided over by Justice Verna L. Saunders, denied the motion. The petitioner appealed, seeking a reversal of the denial.

Appellate Division’s Ruling

The First Department affirmed the trial court’s decision but modified it by vacating the outright denial and remanding the matter for a hearing. The appellate court found that while the petitioner had established the necessity of access and the respondents’ refusal, the motion was deficient due to a lack of adequate and specific information regarding the proposed protections. This omission raised concerns about the safety and impact on the respondents’ property.

Key Takeaways for Property Owners and Developers

RPAPL 881 Balances Interests RPAPL § 881 is designed to strike a balance between a property owner’s need to make improvements and the adjoining owner’s right to enjoy their property without unnecessary interference. Courts carefully evaluate both parties’ interests to ensure fairness.
Detailed Documentation is Crucial The ruling emphasizes the necessity of providing clear, specific, and comprehensive plans when seeking an access license. Petitioners must submit well-documented safety plans, engineering reports, and explanations to demonstrate that the proposed work will not unduly burden the adjoining owner.
A Hearing May Be Required Instead of an outright denial, courts may opt to hold a hearing to address concerns about safety, protective measures, and compensation. In Goodbody, the Appellate Division directed that additional proceedings should determine appropriate conditions, including the license fee payable to the adjoining owner.
Neighborly Negotiations Matter Extended negotiations between the parties in this case ultimately proved unsuccessful. However, property owners should always attempt to engage in good-faith discussions before resorting to litigation. A well-negotiated agreement can often prevent costly and time-consuming legal battles.

Conclusion

Thomas Anthony Holdings LLC v. Goodbody serves as a pivotal reminder that property owners seeking access under RPAPL § 881 must be meticulous in their approach. The case reinforces the importance of detailed safety plans, judicial discretion, and the potential for hearings to resolve disputes. For construction professionals, developers, and legal practitioners, understanding the nuances of RPAPL § 881 is essential in navigating the complexities of property access in New York City.

If you are facing an RPAPL § 881 issue, seeking legal counsel with experience in construction access agreements can make all the difference. Contact James J. Corbett, P.C. firm, experts in NY Real Estate and Construction Law, to ensure your property rights and construction timelines remain protected.