Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. Wins Motion, Resulting in Vacating of License Fee Award Against Manhattan Cooperative
When a Manhattan cooperative corporation (“Corporation”) found itself on the losing end of a five-figure license fee award tied to a contentious Local Law 11 façade restoration project, the board turned to Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. to reverse course — and get the case back on track.The Corporation governing a Manhattan apartment building, had entered into a Court-ordered license agreement with Respondents to allow access to their building in connection with the Corporation’s Facade Inspection Safety Program (FISP) work, mandated under New York City’s Local Law 11. As is common with major façade projects, the work did not proceed on the original timeline due to unavoidable delays, which were covered as delays under the license agreement.
Respondents, unsatisfied with the Corporation’s explanation and submissions regarding the delays, moved to hold the Corporation in contempt, alleging violations of the license agreement, and seeking license fees for the extended access period.
In its February 2026 decision, the motion court denied the contempt application outright — finding that Respondents had never properly served the Corporation, as required under Judiciary Law § 761 — but nevertheless went on to award Respondents their claimed license fees as part of that same defective motion. The Corporation was left with a substantial monetary judgment stemming from a motion the court itself had found procedurally invalid.
Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. moved swiftly on behalf of the Corporation, seeking leave to reargue under CPLR 2221(d). The firm argued that the court should never have reached the merits of the license-fee dispute within a contempt motion it had already found procedurally defective for lack of personal service. She further marshalled new evidentiary material demonstrating that delays in the FISP work were attributable to the Department of Buildings’ own internal processing — including new requirements imposed on the cooperative that had not previously applied — squarely implicating the “Unavoidable Delays” provision of the License Agreement. The firm also challenged the court’s reliance on an expert affirmation that Respondents had improperly introduced for the first time in reply papers, depriving the Corporation of any fair opportunity to respond.
The Court agreed on every front. In its August 24, 2026 Decision and Order, the State Supreme Court judge held that the license-fee issue should not have been decided within the defective contempt motion, and that expert evidence submitted for the first time on reply generally should not be considered.
Crediting the Corporation’s newly submitted DOB correspondence, the Court found that genuine factual questions remained regarding the cause of the delays, the applicability of the Unavoidable Delays clause, and the circumstances surrounding removal of the building’s sidewalk protections.
The Court granted the Corporation’s motion for reargument in full and vacated the license fee award. Rather than leave a disputed factual record unresolved, the Court remanded the license-fee question for a full evidentiary hearing, giving the Corporation the opportunity it had been denied to contest the fees on a developed record. The result eliminated an unfavorable and improper financial judgment against the Corporation, and reopened the license-fee dispute for proper adjudication on the merits.
Joanna Peck, Esq., Partner at Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C., represented the Petitioner in this matter.