Judicial Insight
Back to feed
(the neighbor is awarded legal fees)CivilCourt of AppealsAppeal

Matter of Panasia Estate, Inc. v. 29 W. 19 Condominium

Court
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided
Oct 15, 2026
Docket
Index No. 157852/19|Appeal No. 7255|Case No. 2025-03557|
Judges
Not listed
Cited as2026 NY Slip Op 06015
Detailed analysis & 3-line summary

AI breakdown

Analyzed Oct 16, 2026

Where this case stands

  1. Supreme Court: ordered petitioner to pay respondent MKF Realty Corp.'s attorneys' fees in the amount of $41,196.70.

  2. This decision · Appeal

    (the neighbor is awarded legal fees)

TL;DR

  1. 1A company wants to access a neighboring property for its own benefit.
  2. 2The court ruled that the company must pay the neighbor's attorney fees totaling $41,196.70.
  3. 3This decision was based on the neighbor being brought into court without wrongdoing.

Key issues

  1. 1

    Should the company pay for the neighbor's legal costs?

    Holding · Yes, the company must pay the neighbor's legal fees under property law.

Why it matters

This affects how legal fees are awarded in property disputes, especially when one party is seeking access for its own benefit.

The AI breakdown is a reading aid, not legal advice. Always check the opinion for the exact wording.

If you were the judge?

A company wants access to a neighboring property. Should it pay the neighbor's legal fees?

  1. 1A company is trying to get access to a neighboring property for its own use.
  2. 2The neighbor had to hire lawyers to defend against this request in court.
  3. 3Now, the company must pay those legal fees as ordered by the court.

Should the company pay the neighbor's legal fees for fighting its property access request?

Vote to earn 10 Verdict Points

Parties

  • Appellant

    Matter of Panasia Estate, Inc.

  • Appellee

    29 W. 19 Condominium

Roles are inferred from the case caption.

Opinion of the court
Matter of Panasia Estate, Inc. v 29 W. 19 Condominium 2026 NY Slip Op 06015 October 15, 2026 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports. In the Matter of Panasia Estate, Inc., Petitioner-Appellant, v 29 West 19 Condominium, et al., Respondents-Respondents. Decided and Entered: October 15, 2026 Index No. 157852/19|Appeal No. 7255|Case No. 2025-03557| Before: Manzanet-Daniels, J.P., Shulman, Rodriguez, Higgitt, Rosado, JJ. Tuttle Yick LLP, New York (Peter C. Dee of counsel), for appellant. Fox Rothschild LLP, New York (Thomas V. Juneau, Jr. of counsel), for 29 West 19 Condominium, Lauren Cipicchio and Daniel Daly, respondents. Van Leer & Greenberg, New York (Evan Van Leer-Greenberg of counsel), for MKF Realty Corp., respondent. [*1] Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lyle E. Frank, J.), entered on or about June 6, 2025, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, ordered petitioner to pay respondent MKF Realty Corp.'s attorneys' fees in the amount of $41,196.70, unanimously affirmed, with costs. Supreme Court properly awarded MKF Realty its attorneys' fees incurred in this RPAPL 881 proceeding for a license to enter adjoining real property (Matter of Panasia Estate, Inc. v 29 W. 19 Condominium, 204 AD3d 33 [1st Dept 2022], lv dismissed 38 NY3d 1125 [2022]; Matter of Panasia Estate Inc. v 29 West 19 Condominium, 224 AD3d 414 [1st Dept 2024], lv dismissed 41 NY3d 1015 [2024]). As this Court has previously held multiple times, the American rule governing fee awards does not preclude an award of fees to respondents under RPAPL 881 (Panasia Estate Inc., 224 AD3d at 414; Panasia Estate, Inc., 204 AD3d at 38). Fees in RPAPL 881 proceeding are not awarded to the prevailing party, but rather, to respondents who "are not accused of any wrongful conduct but are haled into court by a petitioner seeking access to their properties solely for its own benefit" (Panasia Estate Inc., 224 AD3d at 414 [internal quotation marks omitted]). Thus, a "prevailing party" determination is not required. Accordingly, the recent amendment to RPAPL 881 (RPAPL 881[5][b]), even if applicable retroactively, would not preclude an award of attorneys' fees to respondents or affect the court's discretion in awarding fees. Contrary to petitioner's contention, which was raised for the first time in its reply, Supreme Court expressly stated the basis for the fees awarded to MKF (see Matter of Panstar Realty LLC v New York Teachers Hous. Corp., 246 AD3d 473, 474 [1st Dept 2026]). We have considered petitioner's remaining contentions and find them unavailing. THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT. ENTERED: October 15, 2026
View on CourtListener