Pinnacle Madison Avenue Corporation v. Italian Trade Agency

Background

Pinnacle filed a petition under Section 881 of New York’s Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law seeking access to property owned by the Italian Trade Agency (ITA). On February 3, 2025, the Court adopted a report and recommendation and granted the petition. The Court issued Pinnacle a license to enter ITA’s property and install protective measures related to Pinnacle’s construction of an elevator in the adjacent backyard.

ITA moved for reconsideration, but the Court denied that motion on May 5, 2025. ITA then appealed both orders and moved to stay them—that is, to pause their operation—while the appeal was pending.

Legal Standard

The Court applied four factors for deciding whether to stay an order pending appeal: whether the applicant is likely to succeed on the merits, whether it will suffer irreparable harm without a stay, whether a stay would substantially injure other interested parties, and where the public interest lies. The strength required for one factor may vary depending on the strength of the others.

Court’s Analysis

The likelihood-of-success factor weighed against a stay. The Court found that ITA was repeating arguments it had already made and that the February 3 and reconsideration orders had explained why those arguments were meritless. Therefore, ITA had not made the required strong showing that it was likely to succeed on appeal.

The irreparable-harm factor strongly favored a stay. Without a stay, Pinnacle would enter ITA’s property and proceed with the elevator construction and the installation and removal of protective measures. ITA argued that this could cause undeterminable damage to the property’s architectural significance and to ITA’s property interest. The Court stated that deprivation of an interest in real property constitutes irreparable harm.

The remaining factors did not favor a stay. A stay would likely injure Pinnacle, which reported significant prejudice and continuing losses of approximately $330,000 per month from construction delays. The Court also found that ITA had not shown that the public interest favored a stay because ITA offered only a conclusory assertion about determining whether Pinnacle’s license application was obtained unlawfully.

Ruling

Balancing the factors, Judge Analisa Torres found that a stay was warranted because the potential deprivation of ITA’s property interest outweighed the other considerations. ITA’s motion for a stay pending appeal was granted. The February 3 order and the reconsideration order were stayed pending resolution of ITA’s appeal.