Reviewed September 7, 2026.
Barklee 94 LLC v. Oliver, 124 AD3d 459 (1st Dept 2015), involved adjoining townhouses and a common structural wall. The appellate court dismissed several claims while allowing others to continue. It did not make a final finding that the neighbors violated the Building or Landmarks Codes.
Claims involving certain 2009 work were time-barred. A three-year period also governed the particular settlement-agreement claim because that agreement added no duties beyond the existing code obligations. This is not a general three-year limitation for construction contract claims.
The rooftop-wiring trespass allegations survived when the complaint was read as a whole. The documentary evidence did not conclusively resolve whether an exception to the usual independent-contractor liability rule applied. The original article had misstated that point.
Claims concerning structural changes to the party wall and foundation and inadequate lateral support also survived. An architect’s payment application did not conclusively establish completion for the limitation defense, and a DOB inspection report did not conclusively defeat the code allegations.
Party-wall disputes require review of title and easement rights, agreements, construction dates, plans and engineering evidence. A surviving pleading is an opportunity to prove a claim, not a damages judgment.
Kushnick Pallaci PLLC assists clients throughout New York with party-wall and adjoining-property disputes. Contact 631-752-7100 or vtp@kushnicklaw.com.
Attorney Advertising. General information, not legal advice.
No comments:
Post a Comment