Real Property Law

In 2013, landowner brought this action seeking to compel the Housing Authority to maintain the portions of the former party wall that are now part of landowner's building. Supreme Court dismissed the complaint.

In affirming, the Appellate Division concluded that the wall stopped being a party wall when it stopped providing support for the structures on landowner's adjacent lot. At that point, all adjacent easements ceased. The Housing Authority had no responsibility for exposing or maintaining the part of the wall that became part of landowner's building.

COMMENT

When an owner destroys a building that shared a party wall with its neighbor, the owner retains the obligation to maintain the portion of the wall that remains on its property. In 12 W. 31st St. Corp. v. Consol. Edison Co. of N.Y., 17 Misc. 3d 1140(A), the court ordered an owner that had destroyed its own building to remove, replace, and secure loose brick on the exposed façade of a party wall still in use by the neighbor. The court rejected the owner's demand that the neighbor pay for, or contribute to the cost of, the repair.

Once an owner demolishes a building that shares a party wall, the owner has no right to compel his neighbor to maintain the wall for use in a new building. Thus, in 57 East Seventy-Sixth St. Corporation v. Knickerbocker Ice Co., 263 N.Y. 63, the court held that an owner who destroyed his own building, except for the party wall adjacent to his neighbor's building, had no cause of action against a neighbor who subsequently destroyed his own building and the party wall. The court in Knickerbocker indicated that once a building owner demolishes its building, the other adjacent building owner has the option of continuing the wall for the support of his existing building, or demolishing this building and the entire party wall.

Contract Vendee's Failure to Obtain Approvals
Little Cherry, LLC v. Two Bridgeset Housing Development Co.
NYLJ 2/2/17, p. 23, col. 4
AppDiv, First Dept.
(memorandum opinion)

In an action by contract vendee against seller for breach of the contract, seller appealed from Supreme Court's partial denial of its summary judgment motion, and contract vendee cross-appealed from partial grant and from cancellation of contract vendee's notice of pendency. The Appellate Division modified to grant seller's summary judgment motion on all causes of action, holding that contract vendee's failure to obtain necessary approvals resulted in cancellation of the contract.

The sale contract provided that it would terminate if contract vendee failed, within a specified time, to obtain approval from the Department of City Planning of a minor modification of a special permit regarding the proximity of the subject building and a neighboring building, and failed to obtain consent from all owners within the Large Scale Development plan within which the building is located. Contract vendee did not obtain the requisite approval and consent within the specified time.

In holding that seller was entitled to summary judgment, the Appellate Division concluded that contract vendee failed to raise a triable question of fact to suggest that seller took responsibility for the approvals or frustrated efforts to obtain the approvals.

Party Wall Easement
211 West 61st Street Condominium, Inc. v. New York City Housing Authority
NYLJ 1/12/17 AppDiv, First Dept.
(memorandum opinion)

In landowner's action against the Housing Authority to compel maintenance of a former party wall separating landowner's parcel from the Housing Authority's parcel, landowner appealed from Supreme Court's dismissal of the complaint. The Appellate Division affirmed, holding that once the prior building on the Housing Authority's parcel was demolished, the wall ceased being a party wall and any maintenance obligations ceased.

Until 1927, adjoining tenements stood on landowner's parcel and the Housing Authority's parcel. The two buildings shared a party wall. In 1927, landowner's predecessor tore down the tenement on its parcel and built the current seven-story building. Landowner's predecessor incorporated the party wall into the building's façade, but did not use it for support. In 1934, the then-owner of the Housing Authority's parcel tore down the tenement. The empty lot was ultimately condemned, and then acquired by the Housing Authority, which uses part of the parcel as a component of a larger public housing project, but uses the portion adjacent to landowner's parcel as a parking lot.

In 2013, landowner brought this action seeking to compel the Housing Authority to maintain the portions of the former party wall that are now part of landowner's building. Supreme Court dismissed the complaint.

In affirming, the Appellate Division concluded that the wall stopped being a party wall when it stopped providing support for the structures on landowner's adjacent lot. At that point, all adjacent easements ceased. The Housing Authority had no responsibility for exposing or maintaining the part of the wall that became part of landowner's building.

COMMENT

When an owner destroys a building that shared a party wall with its neighbor, the owner retains the obligation to maintain the portion of the wall that remains on its property. In 12 W. 31st St. Corp. v. Consol. Edison Co. of N.Y., 17 Misc. 3d 1140(A), the court ordered an owner that had destroyed its own building to remove, replace, and secure loose brick on the exposed façade of a party wall still in use by the neighbor. The court rejected the owner's demand that the neighbor pay for, or contribute to the cost of, the repair.

Once an owner demolishes a building that shares a party wall, the owner has no right to compel his neighbor to maintain the wall for use in a new building. Thus, in 57 East Seventy-Sixth St. Corporation v. Knickerbocker Ice Co., 263 N.Y. 63, the court held that an owner who destroyed his own building, except for the party wall adjacent to his neighbor's building, had no cause of action against a neighbor who subsequently destroyed his own building and the party wall. The court in Knickerbocker indicated that once a building owner demolishes its building, the other adjacent building owner has the option of continuing the wall for the support of his existing building, or demolishing this building and the entire party wall.

Contract Vendee's Failure to Obtain Approvals
Little Cherry, LLC v. Two Bridgeset Housing Development Co.
NYLJ 2/2/17, p. 23, col. 4
AppDiv, First Dept.
(memorandum opinion)

In an action by contract vendee against seller for breach of the contract, seller appealed from Supreme Court's partial denial of its summary judgment motion, and contract vendee cross-appealed from partial grant and from cancellation of contract vendee's notice of pendency. The Appellate Division modified to grant seller's summary judgment motion on all causes of action, holding that contract vendee's failure to obtain necessary approvals resulted in cancellation of the contract.

The sale contract provided that it would terminate if contract vendee failed, within a specified time, to obtain approval from the Department of City Planning of a minor modification of a special permit regarding the proximity of the subject building and a neighboring building, and failed to obtain consent from all owners within the Large Scale Development plan within which the building is located. Contract vendee did not obtain the requisite approval and consent within the specified time.

In holding that seller was entitled to summary judgment, the Appellate Division concluded that contract vendee failed to raise a triable question of fact to suggest that seller took responsibility for the approvals or frustrated efforts to obtain the approvals.