Lincoln Spencer Apartments, Inc. v. Zeckendorf-68th Street Associates

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lincoln Spencer Apartments, Inc. v. Zeckendorf-68th Street Associates

88 A.D.3d 606, 931 N.Y.2d 69

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 25, 2011·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

REAFL 881 is the means by which a landowner seeking “to make improvements or repairs” to its property may seek a license to enter an adjoining landowner’s property when those “improvements or repairs cannot be made” without such entry. Here, the court erred by granting petitioner a license to access Copley’s roof because petitioner failed to “state the facts making such entry necessary,” as the statute requires (id.). The petition, and the affidavit of a “senior associate” submitted for the first time in petitioner’s reply papers, conclusorily state that access to Copley’s roof was necessary. Fetitioner has failed to put forward any explanation as to why the work could not otherwise be performed or indeed, any facts whatsoever (see Matter of 155 W. 21st St., LLC v McMullan, 61 AD3d 497, 504-505 [2009]; see also Amalgamated Dwellings v Hillman Hous. Corp., 299 AD2d 199, 200 [2002]). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.E, Friedman, Catterson, Renwick and Richter, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

REAFL 881 is the means by which a landowner seeking “to make improvements or repairs” to its property may seek a license to enter an adjoining landowner’s property when those “improvements or repairs cannot be made” without such entry. Here, the court erred by granting petitioner a license to access Copley’s roof because petitioner failed to “state the facts making such entry necessary,” as the statute requires (id.). The petition, and the affidavit of a “senior associate” submitted for the first time in petitioner’s reply papers, conclusorily state that access to Copley’s roof was necessary. Fetitioner has failed to put forward any explanation as to why the work could not otherwise be performed or indeed, any facts whatsoever (see Matter of 155 W. 21st St., LLC v McMullan, 61 AD3d 497, 504-505 [2009]; see also Amalgamated Dwellings v Hillman Hous. Corp., 299 AD2d 199, 200 [2002]). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.E, Friedman, Catterson, Renwick and Richter, JJ.

Lincoln Spencer Apartments, Inc. v. Zeckendorf-68th Street Associates, 88 A.D.3d 606, 931 N.Y.2d 69 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

88 A.D.3d 606 (Lincoln Spencer Apartments, Inc. v. Zeckendorf-68th Street Associates) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related