A moneyed Upper East Side family is looking to build an indoor pool in the cellar of their posh residence \u2014 but their neighbors aren\u2019t exactly having a splash.<\/p>\n
Plans are in place \u2014 but work hasn\u2019t yet begun \u2014 to construct a private underground swimming pool on a tony block near Fifth Avenue. The owners of the double-wide townhouse at 15-17 E. 77th St., which they bought<\/a> in May 2023 for $30 million, have filed plans to gut-renovate and expand their luxury lair \u2014 whose total dollar estimate is not available. <\/p>\n The next-door neighbors are trying to halt the pool part of the project, fearing that the extensive excavation necessary \u2014 nearly a year of jackhammering into the notoriously unyielding bedrock known as Manhattan schist \u2014 will cause irreparable harm to their health and home.<\/p>\n The law allows<\/a> for a construction project to encroach upon an adjacent property \u2014 with proper protections, such as scaffolding and a licensing agreement for access. But after months of negotiations, the parties remain at loggerheads.<\/p>\n Zachary Kurz and Brittany Morgan purchased the double-wide property for $30 million in 2023. Patrick McMullan via Getty Images<\/p>\n Plans are in place for an expansion and a renovation for their home, where they don\u2019t yet reside. Olga Ginzburg for the N.Y. Post<\/p>\n Court papers show certain renderings for the couple\u2019s plans for their Upper East Side home.<\/p>\n In August, the buyers aiming to construct the underground pool \u2014 Brittany Morgan, 37, a member of the family that owns Morgan Properties<\/a>, one of the nation\u2019s largest privately held apartment landlords, and her husband Zachary Kurz, 39, who runs a hedge fund \u2014 sued for access.<\/p>\n The neighbors are a doctor couple in their mid-70s. He\u2019s an ophthalmologist and she\u2019s a retired dermatologist. They bought their townhouse in 2003 for $5.22 million.<\/p>\n In September, the doctors countersued for \u201cadverse possession,\u201d since the construction would intrude upon a 1-foot slice of land of their rear yard, which they have decorated with plantings and pavers.<\/p>\n The project would also constitute a private nuisance, court papers say, upending the doctors\u2019 lives and causing \u201cirreparable injury\u201d to an elderly man with breathing problems and to a home filled with valuable belongings.<\/p>\n \u201cWe implore your client to simply scale back its project,\u201d wrote the doctors\u2019 lawyer, David Peraino of Peraino Malinowski, to the other couple\u2019s lawyer, Kevin Grande of Quinn McCabe. \u201cIts desire to have an underground swimming pool is causing enormous inconvenience to its directly adjacent neighbors.\u201d<\/p>\n Both lawyers declined The Post\u2019s requests for comment.<\/p>\n Last fall, Morgan \u2014 who appears to share three kids with her husband \u2014 sent a cheery email to the elderly neighbors, as filed in court papers in Manhattan Supreme Court.<\/p>\n \u201cIt was so nice to get together at your beautiful home before and I want to give you an update on where we are and let you know the status thus far!\u201d Morgan wrote.<\/p>\n \u201cWe understand the project will require license agreements and would like to set a meeting with our team to walk through the project scope and associated work that affects your property so that all is handled smoothly and efficiently for all! \u2026 I am so looking forward to joining the 77th block with you as such wonderful neighbors!\u201d<\/p>\n The family at No. 15-17 plan more than just a cellar-level pool, as seen in court papers.<\/p>\n The properties at Nos. 15 and 17 are in the center of this aerial image \u2014 and No. 13, where the doctors reside and keep precious belongings, is on the right.<\/p>\n That neighborly relationship soon took a nosedive.<\/p>\n A major concern is \u201cquality of life issues,\u201d according to the email sent by Peraino.<\/p>\n \u201cMy client has both asthma and lung nodules,\u201d he wrote. \u201cHe is extremely concerned about the issue of dust caused by your client\u2019s excavation and its effects on his health \u2026 Your client will be excavating through rock for nearly a full calendar year.\u201d<\/p>\n Assorted plans filed in court show differing timelines. One says that the entire project \u2014 a combination of two townhouses that would also add an elevator \u2014 would last for 21 months. Another gives a timeline of three and a half years.<\/p>\n The doctors are further concerned about damage to their wine collection, their folk-art collection and a valuable chandelier, \u201cthe only other of which is located in the Lincoln Room in the White House,\u201d according to court paperwork.<\/p>\n There are 168 items of artwork, plus glassware, light fixtures and antique furniture. Some objects have been promised to the American Folk Art Museum.<\/p>\n One suggestion for protecting the items from dust and vibration is temporary off-site storage, which would cost around $14,000 for the wine and $49,000 for the art. Another is to keep the items in the home, with certain protections.<\/p>\n In that case, the cost of post-construction cleaning, with labor at $400 an hour, would be between $157,000 and $204,000, according to a detailed estimate by an art-protection consultant, as included in court papers.<\/p>\n The parties further disagree on a licensing fee. Though some court paperwork mentions a licensing fee of $3,500 or $4,000 a month, the doctors also suggested a fee of $20,000 a month \u2014 more if the project runs over.<\/p>\n Dueling lawsuits over the pool construction have made for a legal battle on the leafy block. Olga Ginzburg for the N.Y. Post<\/p>\n The properties involved in the suits all stand in a prime pocket of the Upper East Side, within steps of Fifth Avenue and Central Park.<\/p>\n Those demands are \u201cpalpably unreasonable,\u201d replied the pool couple\u2019s lawyer, Grande. \u201cThe trivial inconvenience to respondent \u2014 placing a scaffold on its roof without impacting access to its property \u2014 warrants an appropriately modest licensing fee\u201d of $500 a month.<\/p>\n But the disruption caused by the work itself is the real point of contention.<\/p>\n According to the construction monitoring plan, pool construction would require an excavation of \u201cup to 24 feet below the existing rear yard elevation.\u201d The equipment used could include \u201cpile drilling rigs, conveyors, mini excavators, jackhammers, bobcats, concrete trucks, and similar equipment\u201d operating during the work hours of 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. on weekdays. An additional 23 nearby addresses \u2014 across the street and through the block \u2014 should have exterior monitoring, according to the plan.<\/p>\n Any assertion that the project would be a trivial inconvenience \u201cis a grievous misrepresentation of the facts,\u201d the doctors wrote in a statement to The Post.<\/p>\n \u201cWe are not opposed to reasonable construction where neighbors consider the impact of their projects on the ability of their neighbors to peacefully enjoy their homes,\u201d they wrote. \u201cThis project is excessive in scope given the neighbor\u2019s desire to install a swimming pool in their basement, and has great impact on the integrity of our lives and our home.\u201d<\/p>\n It is also unclear whether the doctors would need to temporarily relocate if air monitoring showed unsafe levels of particulates. The next-door couple are \u201cblatantly disregarding\u201d the health risks to their neighbors, Peraino wrote. An air monitoring consultant deemed the safety plan \u201cto be deficient.\u201d<\/p>\n Without access to the doctors\u2019 property, \u201cPetitioner will be unable to perform renovation and expansion of the existing buildings \u2026 which will leave the Project Premises undeveloped and will not benefit the community,\u201d Grande wrote in court papers.<\/p>\n A subterranean pool \u201coffers no benefit whatsoever to the community and only benefits one party \u2026 at the cost of every one of its neighbors,\u201d Peraino replied.<\/p>\n Below-ground pools, an example of which is seen in this image, are a rare breed in New York City. Courtesy of Bob Blanda, Mill Bergen Pools<\/p>\n A finished product comes after time-consuming and intensive work. Courtesy of Bob Blanda, Mill Bergen Pools<\/p>\n This sample image of a subterranean pool shows the level of work that goes into the construction \u2014 with contractors and heavy equipment at the ready. Courtesy of Bob Blanda, Mill Bergen Pools<\/p>\n Such below-ground pools in Manhattan townhouses are rare. The Department of Buildings keeps no count, because they require no separate building permit.<\/p>\n But Bob Blanda, owner of Mill Bergen Pools<\/a> in Brooklyn, estimates there are about 50 such pools. His company has built at least 15 over the last eight years, he told The Post. One project was abandoned midstream.<\/p>\n