In an ongoing legal battle in the Sheep’s Head Bay neighborhood of Brooklyn, New York, a controversial development project for a homeless shelter at 2134 Coyle Street has sparked conflict between the developer, Westhab, and nearby Chinese homeowners. The dispute revolves around Westhab’s intention to build the shelter and the homeowners’ objections to the installation of barriers on their private properties.
Representing the Chinese homeowners, lawyer Xue Bin recently petitioned the Brooklyn Supreme Court to reject the developer’s motion for forced entry under the Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL § 881). Xue also urged the court to postpone proceedings to allow for meaningful negotiations. An engineer presented crucial testimonies in court questioning the necessity and legality of the construction process.
Westhab’s plan to construct a homeless shelter at 2134 Coyle Street requires access to neighboring Chinese homeowners’ properties for scaffolding and other preparatory works. The homeowners argue that the developer failed to provide any project plans, construction insurance, or compensation schemes and did not engage in genuine negotiations. They accused Westhab of abusing legal procedures by repeatedly filing complaints without transparency.
Xue Bin emphasized that Westhab had previously claimed the project as affordable housing to deceive homeowners into signing access agreements, only to reveal later the true intention to build a shelter. The homeowners were misled and coerced into signing agreements under unequal language and legal information, rendering those agreements invalid.
At present, there are two simultaneous cases: the developer’s comprehensive civil lawsuit against several Chinese homeowners and the specific motion filed under RPAPL § 881. The homeowners noted that the court previously dismissed Westhab’s application for forced entry on May 7, suggesting the invalidity of the agreements. Despite this, the developer appealed and continued to use the same law to file new lawsuits, which the homeowners deemed as an abuse of legal procedures and repetitive litigation.
RPAPL § 881 allows parties to seek court permission for entry onto adjacent properties for construction when necessary but denied. However, whether the court grants permission depends on the judge’s discretion and fairness factors such as good-faith negotiations, urgency of the project, and protection of neighbors’ rights. The court may also require the developer to bear the homeowners’ legal and consultant fees to maintain procedural balance.
Engineer Mang Wong, holding a professional engineering license in New York, testified in court about two technical concerns. Firstly, the developer lacked legal demolition permits for the 2134 site and attempted to utilize permits from neighboring properties, violating municipal regulations. Each building must independently apply for construction with its corresponding Building Identity Number (BIN) under NYC requirements, or it constitutes an administrative violation.
Secondly, the developer did not complete asbestos surveys, a mandatory step by the Department of Buildings (DOB) for buildings constructed in 1923. Without asbestos testing and remediation, no demolition activities should proceed.
Wong further argued that the developer’s claims of inevitability for entry were baseless since the lack of asbestos remediation and demolition permits hindered project progression. The delays were not caused by homeowners but by the developer’s failure to fulfill legal obligations properly. According to Wong’s professional judgment, the entry was not essential for the project.
Both parties were scheduled for a hearing on the RPAPL § 881 motion on July 23. Still, Xue Bin requested a 30-day extension due to his temporary absence for overseas commitments, aiming to facilitate document exchanges and further negotiation. Additionally, lawyers for both sides agreed to postpone debates on another related motion until August 6.
According to the Buildings Department records, the demolition permits held by the developer for warehouses at 2114 and 2150 Coyle Street are set to expire in September. The possibility of the department extending these permits remains uncertain. Furthermore, the protective system design proposals for these addresses have faced objections from the Buildings Department due to non-compliance with regulations, with approval pending for over a month.