The following numbered papers were used on this special proceeding: NYSCEF Document Numbers 1-51. DECISION, ORDER AND JUDGMENT Upon the foregoing papers, having heard oral argument virtually via Teams, and due deliberation having been had, the within special proceeding is determined as follows. Through a signed order to show cause and petition, Petitioner 379 HAWTHORNE LLC has commenced a special proceeding pursuant to Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL) §881, seeking a court-ordered license to enter upon Respondents’ attached property known as 383 Hawthorne Street, Brooklyn, New York, to install, inspect, maintain, and remove certain protections and scaffolding for the period in which construction is to take place at 379 Hawthorne Street, Brooklyn, New York; awarding it attorney’s fees and costs; and granting such other relief as the Court may deem just and proper. Petitioner is the owner of the property located at 379 Hawthorne Street, Brooklyn, New York, and has an office located at 11 Lawrence Avenue, Brooklyn, New York. Respondents MICHELLE HUNTER and MICHAEL PESCA own and reside at the adjacent property of 383 Hawthorne Street, Brooklyn, New York. The properties are situated on a block of old attached homes. The purpose of the requested access by Petitioner to Respondents’ property is to be able to install certain improvements to Petitioner’s property, specifically erecting a new five-story, nine-unit residential building. Respondents have not granted Petitioner access to their property so that Petitioner can proceed with its building plans. Petitioner alleges, among other things, that a site safety plan for the temporary overhead and roof protection of Respondents’ home was drafted by a state licensed engineer; that Petitioner seeks to conduct a pre-construction survey of Respondents’ premises, place remote access vibration monitors in Respondents’ premises if required by Code, install crack gauges and survey marks on Respondents’ home if required by Code, install rooftop protections on Respondents’ home, install “shed style” overhead protection on the required ground areas of Respondents’ property for pedestrian protection and construction scaffolding upon certain shed areas for installing weatherproofing on Petitioner’s building to be constructed, and use hanging scaffolding for any work over Respondents’ roof; that Petitioner procured commercial general liability insurance for the Respondents’ home in an amount of $1,000,000.00 per occurrence, $2,000,000.00 in the aggregate, and approximately $5,000,000.00 of excess/umbrella coverage and will maintain said insurance coverage until the completion of the work; that if access to Respondents’ property is denied, Petitioner will suffer significant financial detriment with the diminution in value of its property; that the inconvenience to Respondents’ property would be minimal; and that Petitioner will clean up any dust, dirt, or debris that accumulates on Respondents’ home or elsewhere on a daily basis (see generally NYSCEF Doc No. 1, petition). Petitioner seeks additionally that the court-ordered license, among other things, grant Petitioner the right to immediately access Respondents’ property at any time when Petitioner reasonably believes that the health, safety and/or welfare of any person is in immediate harm or jeopardy or to prevent material damage to either of the properties; compel Respondents to execute any documents confirming its consent to the work; prohibit Respondents from unreasonably or improperly interfering with the work being performed; prohibit Respondents from filing a complaint with the Department of Buildings about the work being performed without first notifying Petitioner and permitting it reasonable time to correct Respondents’ concerns; permit Petitioner to utilize law enforcement to enter Respondents’ home; and provide for a license fee to Respondents of $2,000 per month initially, $2,500 per month for months 13- 18, and $3,000 per month thereafter (see generally NYSCEF Doc No. 8, license). Among the claims made by Petitioner, through Shalom Stahler, its operations manager, are that it purchased the 383 Hawthorne Street property with the intention of demolishing the two-story home that was situated there and erecting a five-story multi-unit residential building. He was advised by his architect that notice of construction to neighbors was not required. Demolition was completed in April 2024, and protection for Respondents’ property was not required. Several drafts of a licensing agreement with Respondents have been exchanged but the parties are at an impasse. It was unreasonable for Respondents to demand that Petitioner pay compensation so that Michael Pesca could rent a recording studio for his podcasts. It was excessive for Respondents to demand $50,000 in escrow when there would be $6,000,000 in insurance covering a home worth less than $1,700,000. Respondents’ unreasonableness was evidenced by their stirring up the neighborhood against the construction project and calling 311 to complaint about it. Michelle Hunter Pesca even physically obstructed operations when she stood under Petitioner’s concrete truck chute. (See NYSCEF Doc No. 2, Shalom Stahler aff
7-19.) Notably, Petitioner alleges further that “On April 4, 2024, the Parties conducted a preconstruction survey for which the report by Quiver League shall serve as prima facie evidence of the Adjacent Property’s condition at that time” (NYSCEF Doc No. 8, license at PDF 2). Petitioner’s application for a court-ordered license to enter upon Respondents’ property is vigorously opposed by Respondents, husband and wife owners of 383 Hawthorne Street. Respondent Michelle Hunter Pesca submitted an affirmation in opposition, which is included in the record as NYSCEF Doc No. 22. In it she avers that Petitioner engaged in the following conduct: began its construction on March 29, 2024, when it partially demolished the then situated, adjacent house at 379 Hawthorne Street. She stated, among other things, that Petitioner began demolition without prior notice, posted permits, and a pre-construction survey of their property at 383 Hawthorne Street; demolished a brick knee-wall and metal fence partially located on their property, without permission or notice, and repeatedly otherwise trespassed on their property; installed crack monitors on their property at their request, but failed to remove the “pin” so that the monitors did not measure the increasing damage caused; failed to install vibration monitors on its own property, which were required by their approved plans and was requested several times by Respondents and their structural engineer; delayed unreasonably in providing plans for review by Respondents’ structural engineer; installed flashing on their roof without permission or prior notice; caused cracks on floors and ceilings in over 30 locations in Respondents’ home; caused bricks to fall from their building facade and failed to repair their crumbling chimneys, causing water damage inside their home; failed to station a supervisor or safety supervisor on the construction site for the first week of construction, when the majority of damage occurred to their home; failed to install a demolition chute, as required by approved safety plans, and netting while repeatedly throwing debris from a second-floor window into a truck below, with boards having protruding nails landing on their property; caused work to take place outside of normal hours, without variances or permits, causing disruption to the neighborhood; and repeatedly blocked pedestrian and vehicular traffic, including an ambulance, after hours to pour concrete, jeopardizing the safety of residents and disrupting the neighborhood, all without the required variances or permits. (See NYSCEF Doc No. 22, Michelle Hunter Pesca aff
