Wing Ming Properties (U.S.A.) Ltd. v. Mott Operating Corp., 79 N.Y.2d 1021 (1992)
Encroachments on conveyed airspace are actionable as trespass, but de minimis variations and the lack of demonstrable harm can preclude injunctive or monetary relief.
Summary
Wing Ming Properties sued Mott Operating Corp. for trespass, alleging that new rooftop air-conditioning equipment and parapets erected by a sublessee encroached on airspace Wing Ming acquired in a 1973 conveyance. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the suit, holding that while development rights were conveyed, the new structures were excluded from Floor Area Ratio (FAR) calculations, thus not affecting those rights. Further, any physical encroachment on the conveyed airspace was considered de minimis, and Wing Ming failed to demonstrate any actual harm or diminution in property value resulting from the slight variations. Therefore, neither injunctive nor monetary relief was warranted.
Facts
In 1973, Mott, Kaplan, Chu, and Tam conveyed the airspace above a building at 5 Chatham Square in Manhattan to Wing Ming’s predecessor. Mott et al. retained the right to maintain an existing rooftop air-conditioning unit and room. Wing Ming’s predecessor intended to transfer unused development rights (FAR) to a contiguous building. In 1985, Kaplan subleased the property to the Bank of Central Asia (BCA), allowing BCA to use the roof for HVAC equipment and alter the facade. BCA removed the old equipment, installed new equipment, and built parapet walls extending over the rooftop.
Procedural History
Wing Ming, as successor in interest, sued for trespass. The Supreme Court granted summary judgment for the defendants, dismissing the complaint. The Appellate Division affirmed this decision. The Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.
Issue(s)
Whether the new rooftop air-conditioning equipment and parapets erected by BCA constituted a trespass on Wing Ming’s conveyed rooftop airspace, entitling Wing Ming to injunctive or monetary relief.
Holding
No, because the new rooftop structures did not affect Wing Ming’s development rights (FAR), and any physical encroachment was de minimis with no demonstrable harm. Therefore, neither injunctive nor monetary relief is warranted.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals agreed with the lower courts that no trespass occurred that warranted relief. The new structures were excluded from FAR calculations under New York City Zoning Resolution § 12-10, meaning Wing Ming’s development rights were unaffected. More importantly, the court found that any physical intrusion into the conveyed airspace was minimal. The court stated, “The variations between the air-conditioning unit and room existing at the time of the 1973 conveyance and the replacement unit and ducts subsequently erected by BCA, and the extent to which the newly constructed parapets rise above the elevation plane of the conveyed airspace, are de minimis at best.” The court emphasized that Wing Ming had not demonstrated that these slight variations negatively impacted its property value. This lack of demonstrated harm was crucial to the decision. Even if a technical trespass occurred, the principle of de minimis non curat lex (the law does not concern itself with trifles) applied, precluding the need for injunctive or monetary relief. The court implicitly acknowledged the conveyance of the airspace property right, but focused on the lack of substantial interference and provable damages. The court emphasized a practical approach, requiring demonstrable harm to justify legal intervention in property disputes.