A training facility for a professional sports team was being built in Brooklyn, New York. During the building process, our clients who ran a business making plastics for garbage bags received an eviction notice. In existence for over 70 years, the owners were told that their trucks could no longer access their property to service the factory. They were also told that their trucks and materials needed to be moved, and combined with the lack of access, this was a death sentence for the family business. Scared, they turned to a New York Supreme Court Judge for assistance, and were referred to Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C.
The developer hired one of the largest law firms in New York to take on the factory and their first act was to try to close off the business’ only viable trucking route. As one of the last remaining manufacturing businesses in New York City, the owners relied on access to their loading docks for tractor trailers that shipped their merchandise. Without access to the loading docks, the entire business faced annihilation.
As the developer expanded and threatened to completely block off access to the only viable ingress and egress route for the company’s trucks, Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. went to the factory and the Department of Buildings to collect evidence and interview employees, looking into theories of easements and adverse possession. During this thorough investigation, many hours were spent collecting maps and documents of paper streets, as well as ancient documents including easements to build a railroad. Meanwhile, the developer had already poured concrete for loading docks of its own and presented our clients with an ultimatum to find an alternate route.
The clients previously obtained attorney opinions about the land records and everyone was in agreement that they had no actual rights to their trucking route and that the developer was within its rights to close the route.
However, the team at Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. painstakingly analyzed and poured over the collected pictures, drawings, land records, deeds, agreements, surveys, easements, title reports, and other documents dating back to the early twentieth century. The team performed detailed calculations and examined the applicable directions, distances, and locations. Ultimately, they uncovered a barely legible easement from 1911 that everyone had previously misinterpreted to provide an easement in a different location, actually provided an easement to the business in exactly the location that was in dispute.
The team also crafted legal arguments and defenses, including adverse possession and easement by prescription.
The developer asked for a meeting with our clients; we attended a meeting with our clients.
At the meeting, the team listened for almost an hour while the developer and its attorney presented evidence that the developer believed proved with certainty that our clients had no rights to the disputed land. The developer explained that access to our clients’ loading docks would be closed off permanently and that there was nothing that our clients could do about it. Their attorney stated he would give 30 days for us to move out and that he was being generous.
We then presented our findings. We slowly passed out a memorandum of our findings with attachments. Within a few minutes, the developer’s counsel realized he had overlooked the easement. We slowly explained the complicated map and easements that affected the property. We discussed the land records to demonstrate that we understood why the mistake was made. We concluded that the land records and drawings of the properties demonstrated that the developer had no right to close our clients’ path to its loading docks. In fact, by the end of the presentation, all sides agreed that not only did our clients have a right to access this land, but the developer had no right to access the land the training facility was built on.
As a result of this discovery, which was due to Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C.’s relentless efforts for its clients and attention to detail, the clients’ business averted a certain shutdown. At a later date, a number was presented to our clients that they could not refuse to allow access to the training facility, and the business is able to continue the family tradition.
Adam Leitman Bailey, John Desiderio and Vladimir Mironenko of Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. represented the business owner.