The court’s decision in 157 W 18 OWNER, LLC v. THE BOARD OF MANAGERS OF THE SLATE CONDOMINIUMS provides clarity on the interpretation of RPAPL 871 and the enforcement of Building Code requirements in construction-related disputes. The ruling underscores the importance of demonstrating a substantial encroachment and balancing equities when seeking injunctive relief for property disputes.

In a recent legal battle between 157 W 18 OWNER, LLC (the petitioner) and THE BOARD OF MANAGERS OF THE SLATE CONDOMINIUMS (the respondent), the court rendered a decision that has significant implications for property rights and construction regulations. The petitioner sought to compel the removal of a sidewalk shed erected by the respondent on a public sidewalk in front of the petitioner’s building. The court, however, denied the petitioner’s motion, granted the respondent’s cross-motion, and dismissed the converted complaint. This article explores the background, arguments, and rationale behind the court’s decision.

The petitioner, owner of a building at 157-159 West 18th Street in Manhattan, contested the placement of a sidewalk shed by the respondent, the owner of the adjacent building at 163-165 West 18th Street. The shed was erected as part of a Façade Inspection Safety Program (FISP) repair project initiated by the respondent. The petitioner claimed that the shed encroached onto the public sidewalk in front of its building, adversely affecting its use and the operation of a leased ground-floor restaurant.

Initially filed as a special proceeding under CPLR article 4, the court decided to convert the case into an action under RPAPL 871 in the interest of justice. The petitioner sought injunctive relief to compel the removal of the sidewalk shed, citing encroachment on its property. The respondent countered, arguing that the shed was necessary to comply with the Building Code, protecting pedestrians during the FISP repair work.

The court addressed several key points in its decision:

1. Conversion of the Proceeding:
   The court converted the special proceeding into an action, allowing for a comprehensive review of the matter. This conversion enabled the court to consider cross motions for summary judgment.
2. Encroachment Claims:
   The petitioner failed to establish a prima facie case that the sidewalk shed encroached upon its property. The respondent, through expert testimony, demonstrated that the shed was entirely on the public sidewalk and did not impede access to the petitioner’s building.
3. Building Code Compliance:
   The court recognized that the respondent was obligated by the Building Code to extend the sidewalk shed beyond its property line to ensure pedestrian safety during the FISP repair work. Compliance with these regulations justified the shed’s placement, even if it extended onto the public sidewalk.
4. Balance of Equities:
   The court considered the balance of equities, emphasizing that the benefit of compelling removal did not outweigh the harm to the respondent and the public. The petitioner failed to demonstrate a significant encroachment or harm justifying injunctive relief.

Read the decision here.