Accessing Your Neighbor's Property: Is Your Dream Project Becoming a Nightmare?
What happens when you need access to a neighbors property for a construction project but the neighbor refuses or an agreement cannot be reached? The answer lies in an infrequently used statute that allows a project owner to petition a court for a license to enter upon a neighbor's property. This article summarize the procedure for obtaining such court-ordered license and identifies some practice pointers for potential litigants.
June 22, 2018 at 03:45 PM
3 minute read
Terms of the Agreement
- The Grant of a License—a provision setting forth the scope of the license (i.e., what areas of the neighboring property can be accessed and by whom);
- Term/Schedule for the Work— provision setting forth the term of the license, upon the expiration of which, all work impacting licensor's property will be removed;
- Payment of Expert and Legal Fees—licensor will want a lawyer and professionals to assist in the review of licensee's work and the preparation of the license agreement. These costs should be borne by the licensee;
- Pre-Condition Survey—as the party seeking access, licensee will want to document the conditions of the neighboring property before work commences;
- Scope of the Protection Work—the scope of the work impacting the licensor property will need to be attached to the license agreement. This way all parties know what is to be performed and what is expected;
- Insurance—licensee, as well as its contract(s) performing the work, will need to obtain and maintain liability insurance. In addition, licensor should be named as an additional insured under such liability policy. Make sure all proper endorsements are issued securing such additional insured status;
- Indemnification—licensor will want to make sure the license agreement contains a broad indemnification provision, which will require licensee to indemnify and defend licensor from and against claims arising from the construction project and any work performed at the licensor property;
- Repair of Property—a provision setting forth licensee's repair obligations should be well documented;
- Mechanic's Liens—licensor will want to make sure that if any liens are filed against its property, licensee will discharge/satisfy such liens at its own cost;
- Termination—in the event of a breach of the license agreement by licensee, licensor may want the right to terminate the license agreement earlier than the natural expiration of the term; and
- License Fee—finally, licensor may seek remuneration from licensee for the use and encumbrance of the licensor property.
Looks Like Court is the Answer
[w]hen an owner or lessee seeks to make improvements or repairs to real property so situated that such improvements or repairs cannot be made by the owner or lessee without entering the premises of an adjoining owner or his lessee, and permission so to enter has been refused, the owner or lessee seeking to make such improvements or repairs may commence a special proceeding for a license so to enter pursuant to article four of the civil practice law and rules. The petition and affidavits, if any, shall state the facts making such entry necessary and the date or dates on which entry is sought. Such license shall be granted by the court in an appropriate case upon such terms as justice requires. The licensee shall be liable to the adjoining owner or his lessee for actual damages occurring as a result of the entry.
Chase Manhattan Bank v. Broadway, Whitney Company North 7-8 Investors v. Newgarden MK Realty Holding v. Scneider Mindel v. Phoenix Owners Chase Manhattan Bank Foceri v. Fazio Matter of 155 W. 21st St. v. McMullan Greens at Washingtonville v. Town of Blooming Grover
Is it Over?
Jonathan Grippo is a construction and real estate transactional attorney at Goulston & Storrs, dealing particularly with issues related to senior living, multifamily, commercial office and condominium developments.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllThe Unraveling of Sean Combs: How Legislation from the #MeToo Movement Brought Diddy Down
When It Comes to Local Law 97 Compliance, You’ve Gotta Have (Good) Faith
8 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250