In a case involving homeless individuals at 2134 Coyle Street on U Avenue in Sheep’s Head Bay, the developer has filed a lawsuit against 11 Chinese homeowners under Section 881 of the Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law, seeking to enter the neighboring property to build protective fencing facilities. The court yesterday (September 24) postponed the cases of two home owners to October 8 for further review, while the remaining nine cases are scheduled to proceed on October 22. Both sides’ lawyers indicated that the draft agreement is close to completion but there are still key details being negotiated.
According to the current procedure, the focus of Section 881 does not involve overall land use but is limited to whether the developer can enter the adjacent land to install necessary fencing during demolition or construction, as well as the safety and compensation responsibilities to be assumed during construction. In other words, the court is deliberating on whether the entry and protection arrangements during construction can be approved, rather than disputes over land use or the overall issues of homeless resettlement policies.
Eli Raider, the developer’s attorney, stated in an interview after the hearing that the extension was to allow more time for both parties to reach an agreement. However, the court is gradually shortening the time given, “Otherwise, the court will make a decision for us.”
He emphasized that the negotiations between the lawyers are nearing completion, but whether to agree on the terms still depends on the clients: “The lawyers have done their job, and it is now up to the clients to decide.”
Benjamin Xue, representing the two Chinese homeowners, stated that it will take about two more weeks to clarify the details of the negotiation. He emphasized that even if the developer obtains “entry permission” under Section 881, it does not mean construction can proceed immediately; they must notify the homeowners before commencing work and have the homeowners confirm if all conditions in the agreement have been met.
“The developer still needs to obtain the correct construction permits (for 2134 Coyle Street) and meet various requirements such as insurance, engineer inspections, and pre-construction surveys. Homeowners have the right to request the developer to pay legal fees, engineer fees, and all reasonable compensation, and the contract should stipulate that if hazardous materials or other risks are found, the developer must bear all processing and compensation responsibilities.”
He mentioned that the issue of asbestos falls under the jurisdiction of the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) and is not within the judge’s purview, so asbestos reports are not usually part of the Section 881 procedure. “The current asbestos situation is still unclear, and we will request an asbestos report from the developer. If asbestos is indeed found in the walls to be demolished, the developer must enhance protection and provide corresponding measures.”
Xue further explained that the long wall facing demolition is about 360 feet (approximately over 100 meters), and it is not feasible to only demolish a small section of the wall without dealing with the adjacent sections; therefore, the developer still needs to negotiate and sign contracts with the other nine neighboring homeowners before actual construction can commence.
Currently, over twenty pages of preliminary agreement text have been handed to the two homeowners for review. The text is the result of multiple rounds of negotiations between the lawyers, but whether to sign it ultimately lies with the parties involved. The lawyers stated that while there is a general consensus, there are still some critical details in contention that both parties are not willing to disclose publicly.
In addition to entry and protection measures, there is also concern about whether the Department of Buildings (DOB) will approve the demolition construction permit for 2134 Coyle Street. However, such reviews involving the DOB usually fall under pre-construction administrative procedures and are not within the jurisdiction of the judge overseeing Section 881. The developer’s application for the demolition permit for 2134 Coyle Street has already been rejected by the DOB. As for the neighboring property at 2114 (Dollar Tree store), its demolition permit has expired from September 24.
The outcome of the nine cases scheduled for hearing on October 22 may be influenced by the agreement templates of the first two cases. According to public information, one of the homeowners is preparing to sell their property, and if the construction permit for 2134 Coyle Street is delayed, the timeliness of the entry agreement under Section 881 could also become a point of contention, as Section 881 typically comes with time limits.
When the developer initially sued the 11 Chinese homeowners, several city and state-level elected officials from different parties expressed support for the Chinese community. In August of this year, officials held closed-door meetings with community leaders and nominated Council Member Mercedes Narcisse to lead the opposition alliance against the case.
Henry Zhu, representing the community advocacy organization “Save Southern Brooklyn Alliance,” expressed that they hope to have more elected officials involved, but currently, lawyers are primarily leading the efforts, submitting queries or pressure to the DOB through legal procedures. After consolidating information, they plan to jointly write to the DOB, the Mayor’s Office, and the Department of Homeless Services (DHS) to demand respect for the existing affordable housing resolutions as a political advocacy measure outside of the legal battlefield.
At the same time, the community is also seeking assistance from professionals such as Eric Palatnik in drafting relevant administrative appeals (submitting documents to the DOB, DHS, or the Mayor’s Office). However, insufficient legal fees and resources remain one of the main challenges at this stage.