Building Owners

In many instances, it is only a matter of time before a property owner realizes that the cell carrier it has leased space to has damaged the property owner’s building or violated the lease.  In those situations, property owners need an experienced attorney to represent them against a large telecommunications company.

Since the 1990s, not only has James J Corbett represented property owners and telecommunications contractors, but he also was a member of a telecommunications infrastructure and consulting company. 

The installation of cell tower facilities entails extensive construction which could cause damage to the existing building.  Such damage can range from puncture holes in the roof to extensive structural damage to the building.

The cell carrier’s failure to follow the construction plans submitted to the local Building Department and the failure of the cell carrier to comply with Zoning and Building Department regulations can result in violations being issued against the owner of the building, as well as the building being completely shut down by the local municipality.

While constructing, servicing or accessing their facilities, cell carriers may interfere with other tenants in the building.  Cell carriers may also seek unreasonable access to the building. 

If you are a property owner and your cell carrier tenant has violated your lease, damaged your building or otherwise caused you to sustain a loss, please feel free to call the Law Office of James J. Corbett.

Rooftop Tower Ordered Removed From Building

The Law Office of James J. Corbett recently represented a building owner in an action against a telecommunications carrier in which the Court ordered the telecommunications carrier to remove its rooftop tower and equipment from the building and permanently vacate the building.

After entering into a rooftop lease with the building owner, the carrier constructed a rooftop tower and facilities that were unsafe and  did not comply with the plans it submitted to the municipality.  At a hearing, the Court found the carrier’s facilities to be unsafe and illegal.