Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. was retained by the Board of Managers of a large residential condominium (“Condominium”) in Manhattan to negotiate a license agreement for work mandated by the New York City Department of Buildings (“DOB”) to its building, after negotiations with current counsel failed.

By way of background, over the prior several months, the adjacent owner had continued to impose additional conditions and restrictions in the license agreement for licensed access, stringing the Condominium along through protracted negotiations. Just when the Condominium thought it had an agreement, the adjacent owner would come back with an additional demand to expand the scope of protections to its building. However, such additional protections were not required by the New York City Building Code.

While the Condominium was willing to reasonably cooperate with the adjacent owner, it felt it was being steamrolled and had had enough of the adjacent owner’s overreaching demands for licensed access. In addition, the Condominium had reservations and questions about some of the provisions that had been incorporated into the license agreement by opposing counsel. It needed attorneys who had extensive experience in negotiating license agreements and knew how to play hardball.

The attorneys at Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. stepped into the case and quickly came up to speed on the Condominium’s project, the history of negotiations with, and demands by the adjacent owner.

Leveraging its extensive experience in negotiating and litigating license agreements, the attorneys at Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. reviewed the proposed license agreement, and discovered that many of the provisions of the license agreement designed to protect the Condominium had either not been included in the agreement, or were written in a manner that created unnecessary risk and potential for hindrance to the completion of the Condominium’s project. The attorneys revised the license agreement to extend the protections afforded to the Condominium to be able to perform the work without hindrance.

The attorneys at Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C., also determined that the best course of action was to put the adjacent owner in a position by which they would either have to sign the license agreement immediately, based on the version of the agreement proposed by Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C., which amplified the terms of access in favor of the Condominium, or be hauled into Court on a special proceeding pursuant to Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (“RPAPL”) § 881. And, if it were determined that litigation under RPAPL §881 was the only course of action, it would eliminate the additional temporary protections requested, but not required by the Code, by the adjacent owner in its application to the New York Supreme Court.

The adjacent owner realized that it had overplayed its hand in demands on the Condominium. After consideration and realizing that the attorneys at Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. were not bluffing, the adjacent owner realized that it had no choice but to accept the license agreement proposed by Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C., and allow the work to proceed.

Adam Leitman Bailey and Joanna Peck represented the Board of the Condominium.