One Penn Plaza, Suite 2430, New York, NY 10119
P: 212-382-1600
Get Directions ›
Landlord Tenant

When the nation's largest communication carriers need legal help in New York City to fend off threats to cell sites by landlords or third parties, they turn to the experienced cell site lawyers at Rapaport Law Firm.

NY Motions for Temporary Restraining Orders and Preliminary Injunctions

Protecting New York City’s Wireless Infrastructure

Temporary Restraining Orders and Injunctions by Wireless Carriers against New York Landlords

If a court order is required to prevent a landlord from doing something objectionable now or in the future or to compel a landlord to take affirmative action to do something (for example, to comply with the provisions of a lease), the attorneys at Rapaport Law Firm will petition the court on an expedited basis. We are familiar with New York’s procedural and substantive requirements for expedited (also known as “emergent”) relief. We are regularly called upon by telecommunications carriers to obtain emergency court orders requiring landlords to restore our clients’ access to their rooftop antenna leaseholds. We understand that when a communications carrier has been “locked out” of its leased premises, time is of the essence. This is particularly true in cases that involve rooftop telecommunication facilities. With each passing minute, the danger of irreparable injury increases. In Manhattan and the other boroughs of New York City, businesses, individuals and emergency responders rely upon communications infrastructure to engage in essential voice and data communications.

Complaint for Declaratory Judgment:

Typically, the process of obtaining an injunction involves the filing of a complaint for a declaratory judgment and specific performance. This can be done in Supreme Court or, in some instances, in Federal District Court. Our attorneys file complaint requests that the court issue a judgment that validates our clients’ claims, and compels the landlord to immediately comply its contractual and common law obligations. For example, if a landlord has locked our client out of its leasehold, we will file a complaint requesting that the court issue a judgment declaring that our client has a valid leasehold interest in the subject premises and ordering the landlord to comply with the lease by restoring access.

Typically, the complaint’s demand for relief (also known as an ad damnum clause) has language substantially similar to the following: (this example is from a recent complaint that Rapaport Law Firm filed with the New York State Supreme Court in a case where we obtained a preliminary injunction against a landlord that was refusing to cooperate with our client’s efforts to obtain a building permit for its rooftop communication facility)

WHEREFORE, Tenant demands judgment against Landlord, as follows:

1. On the First Cause of Action, awarding Tenant a declaration that: (a) the Lease is valid and enforceable contract; (b) the Lease requires the Landlord to cooperate with Tenant in obtaining governmental licenses, permits and authorizations, including but not limited to a building permit, for the Antenna Facilities; (c) the Landlord is required by the Lease to sign and return a Building Permit Application; and (d) the Landlord is in breach of its contractual obligations for its failure to return a signed Building Permit Application to the Tenant.

2. On the Second Cause of Action, compelling the Landlord to perform all obligations under the Lease, including, inter alia, providing the Tenant with a signed Building Permit Application.

3. Awarding the Tenant the costs, disbursements, and legal fees incurred in connection with this action.

4. For such other, further and different relief as the Court may seem just and proper.

Establishing the Legal and Factual Basis for Equitable (Injunctive) Relief:

In cases where a plaintiff demands injunctive or other “equitable” relief, the plaintiff bears a burden of showing that there are unique circumstances such that money damages, alone, would be insufficient. The attorneys at Rapaport Law Firm have a record of success in helping telecommunications carriers meet their legal burden required for injunctive relief. Each attorney at Rapaport Law Firm has extensive experience working with telecommunications carriers. Accordingly, we understand the factual and information that may be presented to a court in favor of injunctive relief. When a communication carrier retains Rapaport Law Firm to obtain an injunction, we already have a firm grasp of the relevant factual and legal issues. We present the courts with information about how:

Final Judgment Granting Equitable Relief:

The vast majority of cases that we file against New York landlords on behalf of telecommunications carriers settle prior to trial. If a case does not settle, we proceed with a trial where we demand a form of equitable relief known as specific performance.

The remedy of specific performance is routinely awarded in contract actions involving real property, on the premise that each parcel of real property is unique (see 3 Dobbs, Law of Remedies [Practitioner Treatise Series] § 12.11[3], at 299 [2d ed.] ). The court has discretion to deny such relief “as equity and justice seem to demand in the light of the circumstances of each case” (91 N.Y. Jur. 2d, Real Property Sales and Exchanges, § 204).

1 Cellular phones have emerged as the primary method by which people call to emergency responders for help. The Wall Street Journal recently reported that “Around 38% of households have ditched landlines and rely solely on cellphones, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and more people are using them for 911 calls. In California alone, 75% of 911 calls placed in the state during a recent 18-month period were made using cell phones.” Knutson, “Cellphone Tracking Leaves Gaps in Emergency Services”, Wall Street Journal, December 2, 2013, Print.

Areas of Practice
Contact Information
One Penn Plaza
Suite 2430
New York, New York 10119
Phone: 212.382.1600
Facsimile: 212-382-0920