General

In the Matter of AREP Fifty-Seventh, LLC, Respondent, v. PMGP Associates, L.P., Appellant

101 A.D.3d 440955 N.Y.S.2d 40·New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division·2012·NY

Brief incoming

Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.

Opinion

In the Matter of AREP Fifty-Seventh, LLC, Respondent, v PMGP Associates, L.P., Appellant. [955 NYS2d 40] [MAJORITY] In this proceeding, petitioner sought a license directing that respondent remove a five-foot section of a sidewalk construction bridge, properly placed in front of petitioner’s property, to allow petitioner to erect a crane for its construction project. The court erred in granting the petition. RPAPL 881, 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 premises when those improvements or repairs cannot be made without such entry, has no application here. Petitioner did not seek a license for “entry” onto respondent PMGP’s “premises” (id.). In any event, petitioner failed to explain why “the work could not otherwise be performed” (Matter of Lincoln Spencer Apts., Inc. v Zeckendorf-68th St. Assoc., 88 AD3d 606, 606 [1st Dept 2011]), since the crane could have been relocated. Concur — Gonzalez, P.J., Sweeny, Richter, Román and Clark, JJ.