also discovered that Respondent’s interference with the party wall was not limited to only the top of the party wall, but also extended to the bottom use of the party wall. Peck also discovered that Respondent had installed a scupper onto the bulkhead, and within the plane of the party wall, which not only further interfered with Petitioner’s right to build on the party wall, but also caused water to improperly drain onto Petitioner’s roof, in violation of the law.Īdam Leitman Bailey, P.C. In addition to constituting a clear encroachment, the design prevented Petitioner from building vertically on that section of the party wall.Ĭonsistent with its entire disregard for the rights of its neighbors, Ms. Instead, Respondent constructed the bulkhead beyond the plane of the party wall, and into Petitioner’s air space. The design of the bulkhead, which included a glass skylight roof and decorative molding, not only prevented Petitioner from constructing its as of right one-story vertical addition on the party wall, the design also contradicted Respondent’s architectural plans filed with the New York City Department of Buildings, which indicated that Respondent would only build the bulkhead up to the property line, which ran through the center of the party wall. Specifically, Respondent had previously constructed a bulkhead structure on the party wall. Throughout the course of the three year negotiations, Respondent repeatedly acted duplicitously towards Petitioner, holding itself to one standard when it came to its own prior renovations of its townhome, while holding Petitioner to an entirely different standard.įor example, we discovered that Respondent had illegally built on the shared party wall by interfering with Petitioner’s well-settled rights to the use and enjoy the party wall.
#Disciplinary action agains tadam leitman bailey license#
worked in good faith to negotiate a license agreement with the owner of 162 East 70 th Street to temporarily access the property in order to perform multiple renovations to RLM’s townhouse, including, constructing a one-story vertical extension on the shared party wall. Over the course of three years, Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. Petitioner purchased the townhouse with the purposes of performing a gut renovation and adding a vertical addition to the home.
succeeded in a Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (“RPAPL”) § 881 proceeding commenced against a neighboring homeowner, after Respondent refused to negotiate in good faith with Petitioner concerning, inter alia, construction on a shared party wall between Petitioner’s and Respondent’s townhouses on the Upper East Side. 162 East 70 th Street Trust LLC, Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C.
0 kommentar(er)
