Matter of *** W. **th Owners Corp. v K* centers on a dispute over property access and fair compensation under RPAPL 881, which permits a property owner to request court authorization to temporarily enter an adjoining property for construction or repairs. The petitioner sought access, but the respondents contested the financial compensation for the disruption caused by the construction.
The New York County Supreme Court awarded the respondents a daily license fee of $170 for the first 10 months and $240 per day for the following five months, with incremental increases thereafter. The court considered the respondents' claims regarding the loss of natural light and damage to their cultivated garden but found their requested fees—ranging between $10,500 and $15,000 per month—unsupported by comparable market data. As a further safeguard, the court required the petitioner to establish a $30,000 escrow fund for necessary repairs, given its past history of performing unauthorized work and attempting construction in the respondents’ airspace without permission.
A key point in the ruling involved CPLR 4547, which generally prevents settlement discussions from being used as evidence. The court ruled that RPAPL 881 proceedings do not involve claims that can be settled or compromised, meaning CPLR 4547 does not apply. This decision allowed the court to disregard the respondents' initial, self-represented bargaining position and instead base the license fee on objective considerations, such as the degree of intrusion and financial impact, rather than negotiation history.
The court also upheld an escalating fee structure for the five-month extension period, noting that both parties had agreed to an increase after the initial term. This ruling aligned with similar cases where extended construction periods warranted adjusted compensation for property owners.
Ultimately, the Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the outcome, concluding that the license fee, escrow requirement, and escalating fee structure were reasonable based on precedent and the unique circumstances of the case. The ruling reinforces the importance of balancing construction needs with property owners' rights while ensuring fair, data-supported compensation rather than speculative or overly burdensome demands.
Think they found that constructive?
# # #
DECISION