Party Wall Easement Extends
Only So Far
The
Long Building and the Short Building shared a brick party wall. The party wall
was completely within the boundary of the Long Building parcel. The Short Building
was set back from the street line so that a significant portion of the party
wall formed one side of the courtyard in front of the Short Building. The Short
Building’s owner installed lighting and utilities on the exposed portion of the
wall. The Long Building sued for trespass and the Short Building countered that
it enjoyed an easement in the party wall.
The
trial court ordered removal of the light fixtures and utility lines and the
Appellate Division affirmed. Stamp v. 301 Franklin Street Café, Inc. 2016 NY Slip Op 00410 (3rd Dept. Jan.21, 2016). The fixtures and
utilities were “beyond the scope of a party wall easement.” They “neither
provided support to defendant's building nor contributed in any way to the
maintenance of a dividing wall between the buildings. Instead, they were installed
solely for defendant's ‘mere convenience or advantage’" in operating its business.
An interesting twist is that the Short
Building was allowed to retain a doorway it had constructed through the
wall (into the Long Building’s parking lot) as long as it was used solely for
emergency purposes.
Comment:
The Short
Building had tried to claim adverse possession of the entire wall based on its
use of the interior portion of the wall for shelves, decorations, and
similar purposes. The Court
treated the interior and exterior portions of the wall differently for purposes
of adverse possession analysis, stating the alleged possessory acts concerned
“areas as to which no challenge to the
parties' respective ownership rights has been raised.”