AREP Fifty-Seventh LLC v PMGP Assoc., L.P.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

AREP Fifty-Seventh LLC v PMGP Assoc., L.P. 2012 NY Slip Op 30511(U) March 2, 2012 Sup Ct, NY County Docket Number: 101320/12 Judge: Donna M. Mills Republished from New York State Unified Court System's E-Courts Service. Search E-Courts (http://www.nycourts.gov/ecourts) for any additional information on this case. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. ANNED ON 31512012 [* 1] S1JPREME COlJRTOF THE STATE OF NEW YORK- NEW YOIIK COUNTY PRESICNT : DONNA M. MII,l,S PART 58 .Justice A R It P FIFTIr-,SEVEN 7 'H I J L No. 101320/12 I, INDEX P 1aint ill; MOTKON DATE -V- MOTIONSEQ.No. 00 1 MO'I'ION No. CAL 'l'he following papers, nLiriibered 1 to were read on h i s motion h r Noticc of MotiordOrder to Show C'a~1se-A [lidavits- Exhibits .... Aris wcri ng A ffi dav i I s Exlii hi t s Rep1y ing Affidavits . - . . - - T-iD AkL3 [* 2] SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YOKK: PART 58 - - - - - - _ _ _ _ I _ _ _ _ _ X _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ARGP FIFTY-SEVENTH LLC, Petitioner, Index No. 101320/12 -againstPMGP ASSOCIATES , L.P., Respondent. In this petition, brought by order to show cause, plaintiff AREP Fifty-Seventh LLC (Project Owner) petitions, pursuant. to Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL) license requiring respondent PMGP Associates, L . P . 881, f o r a § (Adjacent Owner) to remove a five-foot section of a sidewalk construction bridge erected in front of the P r o j e c t Owner's p r o p e r t y , to a l l o w t h e Project Owner to erect a construction crane (crane) in furtherance of a construction project (Project) taking p l a c e on the Project Owner's p r o p e r t y (Project Premises) . Alternatively, the Project Owner seeks, pursuant to CPLR 6301, a p r e l . i m i n a r y injunction requiring the Adjacent Owncr to remove the offending sidewalk bridge. I. Background The Project Owner is the net lessee of Lhe Project Property, located at 120 West 57th Street, N e w York, N e w York. 1 The Project _ _ _ _ [* 3] Owner i s h u i l d i n q a 2 9 - s t o r y b u i l d i n g on t h e P r o j e c t P r o p e r t y t o house a h o t e l ( P r o j e c t ) . T h e A d j a c e n t Owner owns t h e p r e m i s e s a t 1 1 8 West 5 7 t h S t r e e t , which h o u s e s a h o t e l ( A d j a c e n t P r o p e r t y ) , a n d which h a s , a p p a r e n t l y , b e e n u n d e r g o i n g f a c a d e r e s t o r a t i o n f o r some t i m e , r e q u i r i n g t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n of a c o n s t r u c t j - o n b r i d g e ( B r i d g e ). The B r i d g e c o v e r s t h e f r o n t o f t h e A d j a c e n t P r o p e r t y , a b u t s t h e P r o j e c t Premises, Premises. arid e x t e n d s f i v e f e e t in f r o n t o f t h e P r o j e c t No p a r t o f t h e Bri.dge a c t u a l l y r e s t s on t h e P r o j e c t Premises. The P r o j e c t Owner h a s r e a c h e d t h e p o i n t i n i t s c o n s t r u c t i o n a c t i v i t i e s t h a t it w i s h e s t o e r e c t a c r a n e . A pad has been b u i l t a b u t t i n g t h e Adjacent P r o p e r t y . for t h e c r a n e The P r o j e c t Owner c l a i m s t h a t i t c a n n o t e r e c t t h e c r a n e on t h e p a d w i t h o u t r e m o v i n g t h e encroaching five-foot s e c t i o n of t h e B r i d g e . I t claims t h a t removing t h e B r i d g e s f i v e - f o o l : e x t e n s i o n , e r e c t i n g t h e crane, a n d p u t t i n g u p a new b r i d g e w o u l d o n l y i n c o n v e n i e n c e t h e A d j a c e n t O w n e r s work b y t h r e e days, n o t i n g t h a t t h e A d j a c e n t Owner s work h a s b e e n p r o c e e d i n g only i n t e r r n i . t t e n t l y . A l t h o u g h t h e p a r t i e s h a v e h a d some n e g o t i a t i o n s on t h e s u b j e c t , t h e A d j a c e n t Owner r e f u s e s t o give t h e P r o j e c t O w n e r s e c t i o n o f t h e B r i d g e down. permission t o t a k e t h e Eive-foot matter j.s time-sensitive, a s t h e P r o j e c t Owner s c o n s t r u c t i o n schedule d e p e n d s , o n g e t t i n g t h e c r a n e insta.l.1ed e x p e d i t i o u s l y . 2 The [* 4] The Adjacent Owner claims that it is doing statut-orilyrequired facade maintenance work (Opp. Memo of Law, at Z), pursuant to Administrative Code of City of NY §§ 28-302.1 et seq., commonly known as Local Law 11 (Local L a w 11). It claims that it cannot ignore its legal obligations to the 13epart.ment of Buildings (DOB)(Opp Memo., at 2) by removing the safety features required f o r its own work. The Adjacent Owner insists that it must, by law, continue and complete its facade work, which will only be done when the DOB s Building Enforcement Safety Squad (BEST S q u a d ) approves removal of the Bridge. The Adjacent Owner also claims that the scaffolding rests on t h e Bridge, and that it would be required to remove all of the scaffolding on t h e s i d e of its building which abuts the P r o j e c t Premises if it removed the five-foot section. It argues that t h i s would be an unreasonable and impracticab1.e burden, calling for, essentially, the secession of its entire facade project until t h e Project next door was completed. The Adjacent Owner claims that i t would have to recommence the permit process before . it could return to its facade work, another intolerable burden. The Adjacent Owner cl.aims that the Project Owner could easily relocate the position of its crane to the other side of the Project. The Adjacent Owner further argues that the project Owner has failed to bring the DOB into this a c t i o n as a necessary party, because [tlhe only party khat could possibly relieve 3 [* 5] [Adjacent Owner] of [its] obligations is the [DOB]. Opp. Memo. of Law, at 6. The Project Owner responds that the DOB has already approved t h e removal of the B r i d g e ; that the Adjacent Owner has provided no engineer s report confirming that scaffolding would have t o come down; and the community will suffer if the time expended on the Project is expanded. T h e Project Owner has offered to reimburse the Adjacent Owner f o r the entire cost of removing and replacing ?.he five-foot section of the Bridge 11. Discussion Pursuant to R P A P L 881: [wlhen an owner or lessee s e e k s to make improvements or repairs to real property so situated that such improvements or repairs cannot be made by t h e owner or lessee without entering the premises of an adjoining owner or his lessee, and p e r m i s s i o n so to enter has been refused, the owner or lessee s e e k i n g to m d k e such improvements or repairs may commence a special proceeding f o r a license so to enter p u r s u a n t to article four of the civil practice law and rules. . . . S u c h license s h a l l be granted by the court in an appropriate case upon such terms as j u s t i c e requires. The licensee shall be liable to the adjoining owner or his lessee for actual damages occurring as a result of the entry. The court adopt [SI a standard of reasonableness in judging whether the licensee can do all that is feasible to av0i.d injuries resulting from its entry on the adjoining owner s property. Mindel v Phoenix O w i i e r s C o r p . , 210 A D 2 d 167, 167 (1st Dept 1994). While the Adjoining Owner claims that it will not be able to [* 6] get DOB permission to remove, and then replace, the overhanging Bridge, the Project Owner, in its reply papers, produces an amended "Site Safety a n d Logistics Plan" (SSP) presented to the DOE, which shows that the DOB has approved the removal of the overhang, the positioning of the crane, and t h e replacement of abutting bridges on the sites. McCormick, Ex. A. See Reply Aff. of James The approval followed an e-mail. from Robert D'Alessio, Director, Excavation, Interior Demolition, Stalled Sites and Scaffolds Unit, of the DUB, previously p r o d u c e d by the Project Owner in its petition. Aff. of James McCormick, Ex. A , T h e P r o j e c t Owner n o w supplies e-mails from Tom Connors, executive director of the BEST Squad, and Robert D ' A l e s s i o , affirming t h a t the replacement of the five-foot overhang by a new bridge will not be a violation of the New York City Bui.lding Code, and that the Adjoining Owner need not provide a new SSP in order to have the changes effected. Id., Exs. E, C. The Adjoining Owner complains, in a letter to the court, that the Project Owner should not be allowed to present this evidence, as it has done so only in its reply and, in general, "[tlhe function of a reply affidavit is to address arguments made in opposition to the position taken by the movant and not to permit the movant to introduce new arguments in support of the motion [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]." Assurance C O K ~ .v DLJ Mortgage C a p i t a l , Inc., 5 ~ AD3d ~ Ambac , 2012 NY [* 7] S l i p Op 0 0 8 2 7 , "2 (1st Dept 2 0 1 2 ) . A l t h o u g h t h e e v i d e r l c e presented by t h e P r o j e c t O w n e r i s new, and may n o t h a v e been a v a i l a b l e t o i t p r e v i o u s l y , t h e evidence f o l l o w s f r o m e v i d e n c e p r o d u c e d on t h e o r i g i n a l p e t i t i o n , and d i r e c t l y a d d r e s s e s t h e A d j o j . n j . n g Owner's c o n c e r n s , b r o u g h t up in opposi.tion t o t h e proceeding, A s such, t h e evidence is a p e r m i s s i b l e r e p l y to t h o s e c o n c e r n s . The A d j o i n i n g O w n e r ' s claim t h a t t h e B r i d g e a n d s c a f f o l d i n g a r e i n t e r t w i n e d , s o o n e c a n n o t be removed w i t h o u t t h e o t h e r , is n o t s u p p o r t e d by a n y a f f i d a v i - t o f a p e r s o n w i t h knowledge, and i s a t odds w i t h t h e DOB's a p p r o v a l o f t h e r e m o v a l o f t h e ¬ i v e - f o o t e x t e n s i o n of t h e B r i d g e , a n d t h e e r e c t i o n o f t h e c r a n e , I n any e v e n t , u n d e r RPAPL 8 8 1 , t h e project Owner i s l i a b l e for a l l damages s u f f e r e d b y t h e A d j o i n i n g Owner's p r o p e r t y i n c a r r y i n g o u t t h e l i c e n s e , a n d t h e Project Owner h a s s t a t e d t h a t i t w i l l p a y for the r e m o v a l o f t h e o v e r h a n g , a n d a n y c o m p l i c a t i o n s which may a r i s e t h e r e f r o m . The A d j o i n i n g Owner's fears t h a t i t will g e t on t h e wrong s i d e o f t h e DOB b y b e i n g a s k e d t o d e l a y l e g a l l y r e q u i r e d f a c a d e r e p a i r s i s b e l i e d b y t h e DOB a p p r o v a l o f t h e P r o j e c t Owner's SSP, and i t s f i n d i n g t h a t t h e A d j a c e n t Owner n e e d not e v e n s u p p l y a new SSP. B e c a u s e t h e m a t t e r h e r e i n i s g o v e r n e d b y R P A P L 881, t h e r e i s no n e e d t o a d d r e s s t h e P r o j e c t Owner's a r g u m e n t s b r o u g h t p u r s u a n t t o CPLR 6 3 0 1 . F u r t h e r , t h e r e i s no c a u s e t o d i s m i s s t h e 6 [* 8] proceedi-ng due to the Project Owner's failure to join the DOB in this action. The DOE is n o t a necessary party. Accordingly, it is A D J U P G E D that petitioner AREP Fi-fty-Seventh LLC's petition is g r a n t e d ; and it is f u r t h e r A D J U D G E D that petitioner AREP Fifty-Seventh LLC is entitlcd to a license pursuant to RPAPL 881 requiring defendant PMGP Associates, L . P . to remove the o v e r h a n g i n g five-foot section of defendant PMGP Associates, I , . P . ' s construction bridge; and it is further ADJUDGED and O R D E R E D that petitioner AREP Fifty-Seventh LLC is obligated to reimburse defendant PMGP Associates, L . P . for all costs which arise from the removal of the construction bridge, and the replacement of the construction bridge. ENTER: 7

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.