The following e-filed papers read herein: NYSCEF Doc Nos. Notice of Motion/Order to Show Cause/Petition/Cross Motion and Affidavits (Affirmations) Annexed 2-12, 15, 23-26, 28-33 Opposing Affidavits (Affirmations) 24-26, 28-33 ORDER Upon the foregoing papers in this special proceeding, 875 East 35th Management LLC (Petitioner) moves (Motion Seq. 1), by order to show cause (OSC) pursuant to CPLR Article 4 and RPAPL §881, for access and entry to the property owned by Pearl Joseph Cole a/k/a Pearl Sanger (Respondent) and for an order: (1) granting it and its contractors, employees, representatives, architects, engineers, construction managers, and trade contractors a license to access and enter Respondent’s Property at 871 East 35th Street in Brooklyn, Block 7563, Lot 29, (Respondent’s Property) for a period of approximately eighteen (18) months from the date Petitioner is granted access to enable Petitioner to install, maintain and remove the following property protections on the Respondent’s Property: (i) a pre-construction survey of Respondent’s Property consisting of non-invasive photographic survey of existing conditions on Respondent’s Property; (ii) access to the air space above Respondent’s Property in order to install and maintain an outrigger system and/or a netting system extending from the new building at Petitioner’s Property and to finish the exterior of the fa9ade of the building to be constructed on Petitioner’s Property (Airspace Access); and (iii) installation, maintenance and removal of scaffolding and overhead protection where needed and surface protection on the roof of Respondent’s [Property] (together with the Airspace Access, the Temporary Protections); and (2) directing Respondent to execute forms required by the New York City Department of Buildings (DOB), if any, in connection with the installation of the Property Protections (see NYSCEF Doc No. 15). Respondent Sanger cross-moves (Motion Seq. 2) for an order, pursuant to RPAPL §881, dismissing this proceeding for lack of merit on a variety of grounds, including: (1) failure to submit any approved plans or permits to this court; (2) the vagueness of the requested trespasses; (3) the vague nature of the entire “Project” that lacks any approved plans or permits from the DOB; (4) the vague nature of Petitioner’s proposed license agreement; or, alternatively, in the event that Petitioner is granted a license for scaffolding and/or for “Air Access” or “Overhead Access,” (5) directing Petitioner to pay all professional (i.e., engineers and attorneys’) fees necessarily incurred by Respondent in connection with this matter, as well as an appropriate monthly license fee in an appropriate sum and range for the entire term (18 months) of the proposed license. In this action, Petitioner is the owner of the property at 875 East 36th Street in Brooklyn, Block 7563, Lot 27, where Petitioner is allegedly in the process of undertaking improvements (NYSCEF Doc No. 1 at 2). Respondent’s Property is immediately adjacent to the east of the Petitioner’s Property (id. at 3). The verified petition, filed contemporaneous with the instant OSC on April 22, 2022, alleges in part that Petitioner commenced this special proceeding to obtain access and entry to Respondent’s property for the purpose of performing, installing, maintaining, and removing (as applicable) property protections on Respondent’s property in connection with Petitioner’s activities at Petitioner’s property (id. at 1). Furthermore, the petition alleges that Respondent’s property is situated such that Petitioner cannot proceed with its Project without accessing and entering onto Respondent’s Property in order to install certain protection work as mandated by Applicable Law. Petitioner claims it has repeatedly attempted to obtain Respondent’s consent to access and enter Respondent’s Property, that the access and entry required will not unreasonably interfere with the use of Respondent’s Property and that Respondent has refused and failed to grant Petitioner access and entry to its property (id. at
4-5; 7-8). Petitioner alleges that Respondent’s refusal to consent to Petitioner’s requests has and will continue to cause significant hardship and inconvenience to Petitioner, including but not limited to delays in the Project and the complete prevention of Petitioner’s ability to improve its own property…” (id. at 9). Regarding the “Project” at Petitioner’s Property, the petition merely alleges that “Petitioner is in the process of filing plans with the DOB to perform the Project” which will last approximately 18 months. Additionally, Petitioner claims that it is immediately ready to perform a preconstruction inspection of Respondent’s Property upon gaining the necessary access and entry to Respondent’s Property and that in order to proceed with the Project, Petitioner is required to perform, install, maintain, and remove (as may be applicable) certain protective measures on Respondent’s Property (id. at
