Summary
This Appellate Division decision affirms a lower court order that denied a plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction and granted the defendant's cross-motion for a license to access adjacent property under RPAPL 881. The court found that the trial court properly balanced the parties' interests, noting the necessity of temporary protections for construction, financial safeguards for the plaintiff, and the lack of triable issues of fact. Consequently, the appellate court upheld the denial of the injunction and the imposition of reasonable licensing conditions.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the Supreme Court, Kings County abused its discretion in granting a license to the defendant under RPAPL 881.
- Whether the Supreme Court, Kings County abused its discretion in denying the plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction.
Holdings
- The court did not abuse its discretion; the license was properly granted because the plaintiff offered no evidence to create a triable issue and the court’s factors favored issuance of the license.
- The court did not abuse its discretion; the plaintiff was not likely to succeed on the injunction claim given the license and the balance of equities favored the defendant.
Key quotations
“"Although the purpose of a preliminary injunction is to preserve the status quo pending a trial, the remedy is considered a drastic one, which should be used sparingly."” (149 AD3d at 1123)
“"Courts are required to balance the interests of the parties and should issue a license when necessary, under reasonable conditions, and where the inconvenience to the adjacent property owner is relatively slight compared to the hardship of his neighbor if the license is refused."” (186 AD3d at 835)
Factual background
The plaintiff owned a lot in Brooklyn adjacent to the defendant’s property. In 2019 the parties executed a license agreement allowing the defendant to place temporary protections on the plaintiff’s land in exchange for monthly licensing fees held in escrow. The agreement expired on October 22, 2021, without the defendant having entered the plaintiff’s land, and the escrowed fees were not returned. In September 2023 the defendant entered the plaintiff’s yard, installed temporary protections, and began construction. The plaintiff sued for a preliminary injunction and damages for trespass.
Procedural history
The parties entered a 2019 license agreement permitting the defendant to access the plaintiff’s property for temporary protections. The license expired in 2021 and the escrowed fees were not returned. In September 2023 the defendant entered the plaintiff’s property and began construction. The plaintiff sued for an injunction and damages for trespass. The Supreme Court, Kings County, denied the plaintiff’s preliminary injunction and granted the defendant’s cross‑motion for a license with conditions. The appellant appealed the order.