Rare Trial Over a Breach of a License Agreement Awards Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. Client a 7-Figure Resolution
After more than a year of negotiations concerning a proposed demolition project adjacent to Plaintiff’s historic East Village landmark building, Defendant-Developer commenced a proceeding pursuant to Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (“RPAPL”) § 881 seeking a license to access Plaintiff’s property in connection with its demolition work. Plaintiff owned a mixed-use landmark building occupied by both residential and commercial tenants and sought to ensure that any demolition activities would not jeopardize the structural integrity of the building or the safety of its occupants. Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. vigorously opposed the developer’s application, arguing that the proposed protections were inadequate and that Defendant-Developer had repeatedly failed to address serious safety concerns throughout the negotiation process.
Following extensive negotiations and litigation, the parties ultimately entered into a comprehensive agreement governing the demolition phase of the project. The agreement incorporated numerous protections demanded by Plaintiff, including building monitoring requirements, stop-work protocols, site-security obligations, broad indemnification provisions, and attorneys’ fees protections designed to safeguard the landmark property and its occupants throughout the demolition process.
Despite securing access through the agreement, Defendant-Developer almost immediately began disregarding the very protections it had agreed to implement. By the conclusion of the demolition work, Defendant-Developer had committed a pattern of repeated and significant breaches that ultimately became central to Plaintiff’s claims and the powerful evidentiary record developed at trial. Among other violations, Defendant-Developer failed to properly install and maintain monitoring systems designed to detect movement in the landmark building during demolition activities. The developer also provided incorrect movement thresholds to the monitoring company responsible for overseeing the property, undermining one of the most critical safeguards intended to protect the building from structural damage. Even more troubling, when monitoring alerts indicated that movement thresholds had been exceeded and work should have stopped, Defendant-Developer continued demolition activities in violation of both the agreement and established safety protocols. Defendant-Developer also violated Department of Buildings permit requirements governing the demolition project. Although the permit required the use of handheld demolition methods intended to minimize vibration and protect neighboring structures, Defendant-Developer instead utilized heavy demolition equipment that generated excessive vibration and ultimately caused structural damage to Plaintiff’s landmark building.
The violations did not stop there. Defendant-Developer repeatedly failed to secure its construction site despite clear contractual obligations requiring it to do so. As a result, unauthorized individuals gained access to the site on multiple occasions, resulting in vandalism, property damage, and significant safety concerns for building occupants. The developer’s failure to maintain proper fencing, security measures, and site protections exposed both Plaintiff and its tenants to precisely the risks the agreement was designed to prevent. Despite repeated notices, demands, and opportunities to cure its breaches, Defendant-Developer continued to disregard its contractual obligations.
With no other option available, Plaintiff commenced an action in court seeking compensation for the substantial property damage and financial losses caused by Defendant-Developer’s repeated violations of the agreement. Over the course of several years, Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. meticulously documented each breach, conducted extensive discovery, and developed a comprehensive evidentiary record demonstrating Defendant-Developer’s persistent pattern of noncompliance.
Following years of litigation, the matter proceeded to a bench trial—a rare occurrence in disputes involving adjacent-construction license agreements, many of which settle long before reaching the courtroom.
After two full days of testimony from Plaintiff’s lead witness and the presentation of extensive documentary evidence establishing Defendant-Developer’s repeated and undeniable breaches, the Court called the parties into chambers for settlement discussions. The bottom line that had been demonstrated at trial was that the Developer lacked any merit to its case and the trial emphasized and demonstrated how poorly the Developer had acted.
Shortly thereafter, Adam Leitman Bailey secured a highly favorable resolution for Plaintiff that resulted in a seven-figure overall recovery from all contributing parties.
This matter serves as a powerful reminder that successfully negotiating a comprehensive adjacent-construction agreement is only the first step in protecting a property owner’s rights. Even the most carefully drafted agreement provides little protection unless it is actively monitored and aggressively enforced when violations occur. Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. remained by its client’s side long after the agreement was signed, ensuring that Defendant-Developer was held accountable for its actions and that the client’s property, tenants and financial interests were protected.
Joanna C. Peck represented the prevailing party for Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C.