![\"East](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ny\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/IMG_0057-copy.jpg\" "\\"Second")
\t\t\t<\/p>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/p>\n
The MTA sued the owner of 2049 Second Ave. to access his building, which the agency says is necessary to complete its extension of the Q line into East Harlem. Wednesday, April 8, 2026.<\/p>\n
Photo by Isabella Gallo<\/p>\n
A landlord is fighting to keep the MTA <\/a>from accessing his apartment building as part of a project to complete the transit agency\u2019s Second Avenue Subway extension<\/a> for fear that an inspection would expose deficiencies that will be costly to repair.<\/p>\n The MTA took the landlord to court<\/a> this week, arguing that if a judge doesn\u2019t grant it emergency access to the building to assess its structural integrity and carry out reinforcement work, it can\u2019t move forward with the nearly $7 billion public works project that\u2019s nearly a century in the making.\u00a0<\/p>\n The latest phase of the planned extension for the Second Avenue subway line will bring it into East Harlem and over to Lexington Avenue \u2014 adding three new stations at 106th, 116th and 125th Streets.\u00a0 Once complete, some 110,000 daily riders in East Harlem, who currently have few transit options, will have better access to the Q train.<\/p>\n But the MTA says that the structural shells for the planned new station at 106th Street Station and tunnels to its north and south can\u2019t be built until it can repair foundational walls and reinforce the foundation of the building at 2049 Second Ave., which is owned by East Harlem landlord Edgardo Kramer.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cFailure to grant access to the [MTA] would result in costly delays to the project, which would deprive the public of this much-needed addition to the MTA Second Avenue Subway line and divert funds from other important MTA public improvement projects,\u201d the MTA\u2019s suit in Manhattan Supreme Court says. \u201cThe project is delayed because the probing [and protection] work must be performed first, in order to ensure the safety of the building, its occupants and the public.\u201d<\/p>\n Why landlord keeps the door closed on MTA Kramer initially agreed to allow the MTA to enter his building and carry out the necessary work in 2023, according to a signed contract <\/a>between him and the MTA.\u00a0<\/p>\n However, a few months ago, Kramer backtracked on the agreement; emails<\/a> between the parties show the landlord told the agency that, while he doesn\u2019t oppose the MTA carrying out its work, he wouldn\u2019t agree to let it onto his property unless it committed to pay for any and all repairs its structural integrity assessments revealed were necessary.\u00a0<\/p>\n The MTA said in court papers that it considers Kramer\u2019s terms unreasonable.\n<\/p>\n \u201cKramer demanded that [the MTA] first agree to bear all costs to remedy any defects that may be disclosed by the probing work before he allowed [the MTA] access,\u201d the MTA\u2019s suit says. \u201c[Those] demands were unreasonable as [the MTA] could not agree to expend public funds on an unknown scope of work.\u201d<\/p>\n It is unclear exactly what work the MTA discovers is necessary and would be paid for by the transit agency and what repairs would fall to Kramer to fund.\u00a0\n<\/p>\n The agency argues the 2023 signed contract grants it the ability to carry out the probing work it needs to conduct, as does the Public Authorities Law<\/a>, which grants state agencies authority to enter private property to conduct activities related to public infrastructure projects.<\/p>\n MTA spokesperson Kayla Shults told amNewYork that litigation against Kramer\u2019s Kamela Properties Corp was a \u201clast resort to ensure timely cooperation as construction moves forward.\u201d<\/p>\n The MTA did not respond to questions on how many other buildings it may have to similarly access, or whether it had been granted access to other properties it needs. It also did not respond to questions seeking more detailed information about its construction, access needs or timeline.\u00a0<\/p>\n Attorneys for Kramer did not respond to requests for comment.\u00a0\u00a0\n<\/p>\n The five-story building is home to Mexican joint Lupita\u2019s Restaurant and about a dozen apartments occupied by renters. The MTA is seeking access to \u201ceach and every part\u201d of the building, including \u201call\u201d apartments and the restaurant, though plans show it will likely only need to actually enter a limited number of units.\u00a0<\/p>\n Court filings show the MTA is looking to \u201cprobe\u201d, or open up parts of the ceiling and walls of certain apartment units to search in the building\u2019s walls and to assess its structural integrity. The agency also seeks<\/a> to complete reinforcement work around the building\u2019s base and \u201cremove, store and reinstall all encroachments on the fa\u00e7ade of the building,\u201d which include Lupita\u2019s Restaurant\u2019s awning, security gate and security cameras.<\/p>\n Construction documents show<\/a> plans to temporarily move some tenants into other units within the building while their units are probed.\u00a0<\/p>\n
\n![\"Second](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ny\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/51700922874_00a47add2d_k.jpg\" "\\"Second")
The Second Avenue Subway tunnel between 110th and 120th streets, dug in the 1970s.Marc A. Hermann \/ MTA<\/p>\n