logo CityLand
      • Home
      • About CityLand
      • CityLand Sponsors
      • Filings & Decisions
      • Commentary
      • Archive
      • Resources
      • CityLaw
      • Current Issue

    Trial set for dispute over fire escape


    CityLaw  •  Fire Escapes  •  Cobble Hill, Brooklyn
    01/14/2021   •    Leave a Comment

    Center building at 338 Atlantic Avenue. Image Credit: Google Maps

    Adjacent owner demanded that next-door neighbor remove fire escape that overhung the adjacent owner’s property. Clover M. Barrett owned a five-story mixed-use building, constructed in 1902, located at 338 Atlantic Avenue in Brooklyn. Barrett’s property had a fire escape dating from the original 1902 construction that hung three feet and five inches over a neighbor’s property located at 319-325 Pacific Street. The fire escape gave Barrett’s second through fifth floor tenants and building occupants the ability to escape or seek refuge on Pacific Street in the event of a fire. The neighboring property was originally a parking lot, but had recently been developed into townhouses. On October 15, 2014, the neighbor wrote Barrett a letter demanding that Barrett remove the fire escape.

    Upon receiving the letter, Barrett sued the neighbor to establish an easement by prescription and to avoid having to remove the fire escape. The Supreme Court found no easement to protect the fire escape and dismissed the complaint. Barrett appealed.

    The Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed, and remanded the case for trial. The court noted that the neighbor had established, prima facie, that there was no easement because the use had not hostile, but permissive, and because the fire escape did not interfere with the operation of the parking lot. In opposition, however, the Barrett had raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the use was hostile. Barrett pointed out that the fire escape, which hovered over a portion of the neighbor’s property, has been adverse, open and notorious, and continuous for the prescriptive period. The court ruled that there was a triable issue and that the case should be tried.

    Barrett v. A&P Pac. Owner, LLC, 179 A.D.3d 883 (2d Dep’t 2020).

    By: Jason Rogovich (Jason is a former CityLaw fellow and a New York Law School graduate, Class of 2019.)

     

    Share this:

    • Facebook
    • Twitter
    • Email
    Tags : Buildings, CityLaw, easements, fire escapes
    Category : CityLaw

    Comment on this article

    Click here to cancel reply.

    Subscribe To Free Alerts

    In a Reader

    Desktop Reader Bloglines Google Live Netvibes Newsgator Yahoo! What's This?

    Follow Us on Social Media

    twitterfacebook

    Search

    Search by Category

      City Council
      CityLaw
      City Planning Commission
      Board of Standards & Appeals
      Landmarks Preservation Commission
      Economic Development Corporation
      Housing Preservation & Development
      Administrative Decisions
      Court Decisions
      Filings and Decisions
      CityLand Profiles

    Search by Date

    © 1997-2010 New York Law School | 185 West Broadway, New York, NY 10013 | 212.431.2100 | Privacy | Terms | Code of Conduct | DMCA | Policies
    loading Cancel
    Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
    Email check failed, please try again
    Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.