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 GroverIs 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
© 2025 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
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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