New York rewrote the neighbour-access statute your facade job depends on — first time since 1968
New York rewrote the neighbour-access statute your facade job depends on — first time since 1968
2026-09-15 · New York · Legislation
Every New York City facade cycle eventually runs into the same problem: the scaffolding, the sidewalk shed, the monitoring devices or the roof protection have to go over the neighbour's line, and the neighbour will not sign. The statute that solves that has just been rewritten for the first time since 1968 — and it changed in ways that both help and cost a board.
Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law § 881 was overhauled by Chapter 601 of the Laws of 2025, signed December 5, 2025 and effective immediately, and amended by Chapter 44 of the Laws of 2026, signed February 13, 2026 and effective on the same date as Chapter 601. The margins were lopsided: the Senate passed it 56–3 and the Assembly 124–13; the chapter amendment passed 55–2 and 139–2.1
The change that gets a board into court
The old problem was not a neighbour who said no. It was a neighbour who said nothing. The new § 881(1)(d) fixes that:
“the term 'refuse', 'refusal', or 'refused' shall be deemed to include instances where more than one written notice has been served, by certified mail, on the owner and has not been responded to within sixty days…”2
Two certified letters and sixty days of silence is now a refusal. For a board on a FISP clock that cannot afford an indefinite wait, that is the single most valuable sentence in the rewrite. It also means the certified-mail record is now the foundation of the petition — so when access is needed, the petition begins with the letter properly sent and the receipt kept.
The statute now lists what you can ask for
Section 881(3) enumerates the purposes, and it reads like a facade project's scope of work: a preconstruction survey; installation and removal of “vibration, crack or optical monitoring devices”; “sheds, bridges, netting or other protective covering over the roof, facades, windows, skylights, mechanical equipment, chimneys or other exterior portions of buildings or yards, walkways, driveways or other open areas on the adjoining property”; “scaffolding on or over the adjoining property”; sheeting, shoring and bracing; foundation supports and tie-backs where required by code; flashing and weather-proofing; “Temporary projections or intrusions into the airspace of the adjoining property”; relocation of “chimneys, vents, flues, exhausts or other rooftop equipment”; and “Construction staging necessary to complete any work.”
A board no longer has to argue that its particular need falls within a vague statute.
And it now says you have to pay
This is the half of the rewrite that costs a board money, and it is not discretionary. Section 881(4)(e):
“The licensee shall be required to reasonably compensate the adjoining owner for the loss of use and enjoyment of the adjoining premises including diminution in value.”
Not “may be required.” Shall. And the court's powers under the new § 881(5) add to it — the court may “obligate the licensee to reimburse the adjoining owner for reasonable fees incurred in connection with the review of relevant documents” and may “insure for damage to property and persons if there is unique, physical occurrence causing physical damage to property or persons caused by the access.”
The court may also “consider evidence that either party failed to comply with the terms of any existing or previously existing license respecting the same property” — which cuts both ways, and means a board's conduct on a previous licence is now admissible on the next one.
The First Department has already applied the compensation principle in a condominium case. In Matter of 144 Barrow Street LLC v The Board of Managers of 130 Barrow Street Condominium, 2026 NY Slip Op 04033, 250 AD3d 614, the court reversed a licence fee set by reference to earlier agreements, because the interference was different:3
“[W]hereas the five prior license agreements concerned demolition and excavation of petitioner's property, the instant license fee was for the period of the building's construction. It is undisputed that the construction phase involved different types of interference with respondent's property, including decreased access to outdoor space both for individual units and the building's shared roof deck, as well as obstruction of certain unit windows.”
The fee is per phase, and the phases are valued differently. A condominium on the receiving end of a neighbour's licence application should be pricing the loss of terraces, the shared roof deck and window light in the phase actually proposed — not accepting a rate set for an earlier one.
The insurance clause: do not do what the first version said
This is the trap, and it exists because the law changed twice in ten weeks. Chapter 601 as signed required the licensee's insurance to name “the adjoining owner and/or its lessee(s)… as additional insureds.” The Governor's Approval Memorandum No. 13 objected:
“I support updating the current licensing procedures for the first time since their adoption in 1968… However, the bill's requirement that the license-holder obtain insurance that includes as additional insureds the adjoining owner and any of that owner's lessees of which the license-holder is aware is impractical. The bill should be amended to require the license-holder to provide the adjoining property owner or any lessees of which the license-holder is made aware with the necessary documents to make a third-party claim on the license-holder's insurance…”4
Chapter 44 of 2026 made the change. The current § 881(4)(d) requires the licensee to provide the adjoining owner and its lessees with “relevant documents confirming the licensee and/or any contractor, consultant or agent thereof that accesses the adjoining property pursuant to a license granted pursuant to this section maintains commercial general liability insurance, provided such documents are sufficient to enable the adjoining owner and/or its lessee or lessees, as applicable, to make a third-party claim under such insurance in the event that such licensee and/or any contractor, consultant or agent thereof damages the adjoining property or any persons thereupon.”
Documents, not additional-insured status. A board or manager working from the December 2025 text, or from a law-firm alert written in December 2025, will ask its contractor for the wrong thing — and additional-insured endorsements are neither free nor quick. Our New York insurance requirements page covers the association's own coverage.
The carve-out that just got much larger
Chapter 44 also rewrote the definition of “state entity.” The original read “the metropolitan transportation authority… or its affiliate or subsidiary agencies.” It now reads:
“the term 'state entity' shall refer to any department, division, agency, office, public authority, or public benefit corporation of the state of New York, or any affiliate or subsidiary agencies of such department, division, agency, office, public authority, or public benefit corporation.”
That matters because the statute bars a court from granting a licence where the adjoining property is a state entity's. A provision that used to reach only the MTA now reaches every state agency, authority and public benefit corporation in New York — which in New York City is a great many buildings and parcels. A board whose facade work needs access over a state-owned or authority-owned property should establish that fact before it budgets for a § 881 petition, because the petition may not be available.
Who the right respondents are in a condominium
A 2026 Kings County decision, Matter of 592 Marcy Holdings, LLC v The Board of Managers of the Marcy Villa Condominium, 2026 NY Slip Op 51167(U), 89 Misc 3d 1236(A), maps this usefully for both sides:5
“Respondent Board of Managers of the Marcy Villa Condominium ('Board') owns or controls the adjoining property… The Board controls the adjacent property's common areas including the roof and building exterior and is representing the interests of all Respondents. Respondent Emily S. Cho ('Cho') resides in Unit 1B and controls the yard adjacent to her unit where Petitioner requests that a rear-yard shed be installed. Respondents Friends of Chabad ('Chabad') and Graham Patterson ('Patterson') control the balconies (Units PH1 and PH2, respectively) on which Petitioner requests overhead protection platforms must be installed.”
The board for the roof, facade and common elements; the individual unit owners for the yards and balconies they control. That is the correct structure, and it is a reason a condominium board facing a neighbour's application should not assume it speaks for everyone — or that it can settle on behalf of owners whose terraces are being taken.
Chapter 601 also added a new RPAPL § 882, a severability clause.
What a board can do
If a facade, parapet, roof or garage project in the next two years needs the neighbour's air or ground: start the certified-mail record now, budget for a compensation payment and possibly the neighbour's document-review fees, ask the contractor for insurance documentation rather than additional-insured endorsements, and check whether the adjoining owner is a state entity before assuming the courthouse is available. Our condo safety inspections page covers the obligations driving the work, and our budget approval page covers where the licence fee lands.
Related New York HOA Topics
- S3799-C (Comrie), Chapter 601 of the Laws of 2025 — full text of the RPAPL § 881 rewrite, actions and votes ↩
- New York RPAPL § 881 as codified, current revision February 20, 2026 — the broad “state entity” definition and the documents version of § 881(4)(d) ↩
- Matter of 144 Barrow Street LLC v The Board of Managers of 130 Barrow Street Condominium, 2026 NY Slip Op 04033, 250 AD3d 614 (1st Dept, June 25, 2026) ↩
- Approval Memorandum No. 13 of 2025 (Chapter 601) — New York Legislative Retrieval System ↩
- Matter of 592 Marcy Holdings, LLC v The Board of Managers of the Marcy Villa Condominium, 2026 NY Slip Op 51167(U) (Sup Ct, Kings County, July 28, 2026) ↩
Stay on top of New York HOA law
Every week: new New York legislation, court rulings, and regulatory developments affecting condos, planned communities, and property managers. Free.
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.