Access to the adjacent property is generally not required for the construction of a sidewalk shed – which is required for twenty feet on both sides of a construction project – because the walkway in front of the property adjacent to the property line is the property of the city (unless the adjacent property is set back from the property line, in which case access to the adjacent property and therefore to the permit, etc. is required). To gain access to a neighbour`s property during construction, one must attempt to negotiate an access agreement, and if this fails, access is negotiated through an RPAPL § 881 procedure. This is not new. But what happens when these negotiations are about much more than just access or no access at all? The “on my corpse” response to a developer`s access request is not really an option for co-op and condo boards, as the law favours developers who want to complete approved projects. If a developer`s application has been denied, the developer may initiate a special procedure to obtain a license to enter the building under Section 881 of the New York Real Estate Prosecutions and Procedures Act. Neighbors are now: dig (no pun intended) into the working hours on the site and try to regulate them with late departures for noisy work or other restrictions during the day, depending on the use of the property by the neighbor; communicate with the developer to discuss the neighbour`s interventions in the developer`s property or the closing of the affected property windows, even if the neighbour has an obligation; and/or simply to consider the neighbouring development as an opportunity to get the developer to make improvements to their property. The design of the sidewalk shed, for example, is a much debated topic because it is not “on” the neighbor`s property. It is rather located on the public sidewalk in front of the neighbor`s property, but can affect commercial tenants on the ground floor, as well as the windows on the second floor. In addition, neighbours assess, comment and prohibit excavation activities on the proponent`s site, although no access is requested and well before a shovel has even entered the ground. While each construction project is unique with its own neighbors and circumstances, the key is for the developer to respond to available options in a timely manner to avoid having no choice but to pay an exorbitant sum to access and protect a neighboring property.  Case 2225 46th St., LLC.
c. Hahralampopoulos, 55 Misc.3d 621 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty. 2017) (Licensee is responsible for payment of all costs arising from access, including steps necessary to protect Licensors` property).  See e.B. Chase Manhattan Bank v.
Broadway, Whitney Co., 59 Misc. 2d 1085, 1091 (Sup. Ct. Queens Cty. 1969) aff`d 24 N.Y.2d 927 (1969) (License granted as requested duration and “not inappropriate” access area.”). This council did the right thing. When negotiating an access agreement (also known as a license agreement) with the neighbor`s contractor, the board set a date by which the work should be completed. Most importantly, he set a $100 fine for every day the work passed the deadline. How developers can avoid costs and delays The best way for a developer to enter into access agreements is to talk to owners of land adjacent to a project as soon as possible, ideally in the early stages of the design process. The sooner a neighbor is treated, the less influence he will have.
If a neighbor seems really picky at this point, it may be worth the effort and extra cost of redesigning the foundations and avoid supporting the neighbor`s property. It is also advisable to ask an experienced lawyer to formulate access agreements to protect both developers and neighbor rights. In the case of work that takes place next to a neighbouring property, the condition of the building must be recorded in accordance with the applicable Building Code. It is recommended to take the additional step of preparing a comprehensive assessment of the condition of the building that describes in detail the structure and any existing problems in order to avoid unjustified cases of damage. The basic rules are quite simple. A landowner who needs access – either to comply with a legal obligation to protect adjacent land during construction or to facilitate or taste construction – must obtain a licence from the owner of the adjacent property. A license is simply a non-exclusive use authorization for a defined purpose and period of time. The license may be obtained either through negotiation and agreement with the owner of the adjacent property or, if no agreement can be reached, through legal proceedings under Section 881 of the New York Real Estate Actions and Procedures Act.
Article 881 provides that a “licence shall be granted by the court in a case appropriate to the conditions required by the courts. A “reasonable case” is one in which interpretation is “necessary” within certain limits of relevance and practicability. The real problem is to define the conditions under which access is granted. Owners who completely resist access largely fail. The first situation is quite simple. In such a situation, an owner must actually enter the adjacent owner`s property or airspace to gain access to their own property in order to carry out the work. For example, a homeowner may try to repair or stucco the side of the building, which is located on the property line. In such a situation, the owner must actually have access to the adjacent property in order to carry out the work on his own building.  According to the New York City Department of Building Code, Chapter 33 of the Code, entitled “Protective Measures During Construction or Demolition,” explicitly states: “[a]djoining …
Private property. be protected from damage and injury during construction or demolition work. . Protection must be provided for . Skylights and roofs” (see §3309.1) as well as pedestrian protection (see §3307.1) and the location of the walkway up to 20 feet behind the building. See § 3307.6.2. and 3301.6.3 Whether you are the owner applying for the license or the adjacent owner and you are negotiating a voluntary license or you are looking for an RPAPL § 881 procedure, Jaspan Schlesinger LLP can help you solve the many problems associated with building border lines and granting temporary licenses to perform such work. If you require assistance, please contact Christopher E.
Vatter in firstname.lastname@example.org or Charles W. Segal in email@example.com. An “access agreement” is increasingly not just an agreement on access to neighboring property, as was once its sole intention. Whether you apply for or grant the license, you should also take into account that there are other parties whose cooperation and consent is required – the owner of the apartment or the tenant with the balcony or courtyard closed, the tenant of the retail store whose light and air are blocked by scaffolding, the tenant or owner of the apartment, outside of which a work platform can be built, the tenant or the immediately adjacent resident who will be most affected by the noise or vibrations. Fast forward to today. The deadline has expired by more than 15 months and the scaffolding is still in front of the façade of the cooperative. But thanks to the access agreement, this unpleasant development has a somewhat clouded glimmer of hope on the horizon: the cooperative has received more than $40,000 in fines from its neighbor. .