This week we wanted to draw your attention to an interesting, and what some may consider a surprising, decision out of the 2^nd Department wherein the Appellate Division affirmed a Lower Court’s Order that had denied a Lender’s motion for Summary Judgment seeking, among other relief, enforcement of its mortgage. The Order and Appellate Division’s affirmation were based, in part, on the determination that the Lender failed to provide evidentiary support refuting Plaintiff’s allegation that one of mortgagees was incompetent and, further that the Lender failed to provide proof that Lender was unaware of any facts alleging that the mortgagor was under undue influence at the time of transferring title or making the mortgage.
The relevant facts of, as well as a link to, the case are set forth below.

Today we wanted to bring to your attention to an interesting decision out of the Appellate Division, 2^nd Department which affirmed a Supreme Court Order granting a Plaintiff’s (Foreclosing Lender) for a judgment of default and directed the retention of the Defendant’s (Successful Bidder) down payment for failure to close in accordance with the Terms of Sale.
The relevant facts of, as well as a link to, the case are set forth below.

This week we wanted to bring your attention to an interesting case decided in the Appellate Division, 2^nd Department which decision affirmed a Lower Court’s Order granting Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint that sought a judgment declaring that the Plaintiff had successfully acquired, via Adverse Possession, property owned by the County of Westchester. The relevant facts of, as well as a link to, the case are set forth below.

This week we wanted to bring to your attention an interesting case decided in the 2^nd Department wherein the Appellate Court affirmed a lower court’s order dismissing a Plaintiff’s Complaint which claimed that the Defendant’s easement for ingress/easement across Plaintiff’s property was abandoned and unenforceable. Notwithstanding that the Easement was not properly recorded against Plaintiff’s property, both the Lower and Appellate Courts found in favor of the Defendant and dismissed the Plaintiff’s Complaint based on the specific facts of the case.
The relevant facts of, as well as a link to, the case are set forth below:

This week we wanted to draw your attention to an interesting case decided in the Commercial Term Part of the Kings County Supreme Court wherein the Court granted Plaintiff-seller’s motion for summary judgment awarding Seller the Contract Deposit and legal fees due to Defendant-buyer’s default under the Contract and dismissed the Defendant-buyer’s motion for summary judgment seeking an Order declaring Plaintiff-seller in Default and directing the return of the Defendant-purchaser’s down payment plus legal fees.  The decision turned on the fact that the post-contract discovery of a zoning requirement that requires the widening of the sidewalk and thereby reduced the square footage of the Property being purchased was not a Seller’s closing obligation covered by the Contract. 
The relevant facts of, as well as a link to, the case are set forth below.  

This week we wanted to remind you that that the official New York City “Heat Season” has begun.  Building owners are legally required to provide heat and hot water to their tenants.  Hot water must be provided 365 days per year at a constant minimum temperature of 120 degrees Fahrenheit.

This week we wanted to bring your attention to an interesting decision out of the Appellate Division, 2^nd Department, which vacated a lower Court’s Order granting Plaintiff/Lender a Judgment of Foreclosure and Sale on a mortgage foreclosure proceeding.  The Court based its decision, in part, on the fact that the “affidavit of the plaintiff's servicing agent, submitted for the purpose of establishing the amount due and owing under the subject mortgage loan, constituted inadmissible hearsay and lacked probative value.”  
The relevant facts of, as well as a link to, the case are set forth below.

This week we wanted to remind you that building owners of certain “Covered Buildings” must start to comply with NYC Local Law 97 of 2019 (“LL 97”), which became effective on November 15, 2019, and sets limits on the greenhouse gas emissions starting in 2024. The goal of LL 97 is to help New York City reduce, by at least 40%, its greenhouse gas emissions from buildings by the year 2030 and achieve net zero emissions by 2050.

This week we wanted to update you on significant changes being implemented to the Title Insurance Rate Service Association (TIRSA)  Manual which will take effect on October 1, 2024 (collectively the “7^th Revision to the TIRSA Manual”).

This week we wanted to bring to your attention an interesting decision out of the Appellate Division, 3^rd Department, which upheld a lower court’s ruling that, in part, dismissed a Plaintiff’s Complaint seeking a Declaratory Judgment that the Defendants’ installation of a driveway had violated a Restrictive Declaration contained in their Subdivision Covenants & Restrictions agreement.  The relevant facts of, as well as a link to, the case are set forth below.

This week we wanted to address a question that has come up from time to time - Does a STAR exemption remain on the property if an approved STAR applicant dies after the Taxable Status Date? (NOTE: for STAR Abatement purposes the Taxable Status Date is March 1 of each calendar year).

This week we wanted to bring to your attention an interesting decision out of the 2^nd Department which held, in part, that a decedent’s children could not successfully claim an interest in their father’s property where the father had, prior to his death, executed and recorded a deed adding his current wife (the children’s stepmother) to Title with the designation - as “His Wife.”

This week we wanted to supplement our July 23, 2024 Title Tuesday and let you know that the NYC Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD) has extended the deadline for certain Property Owners to register their properties with HPD from September 1, 2024 to September 30, 2024 (the “New Registration Deadline”).

This week we wanted to draw your attention to an interesting decision out of the 2^nd Department which reversed a lower Court’s Order and granted a Defendant’s motion to cancel Plaintiff’s Lis Pendens and further dismissed Plaintiff's Complaint which claimed that Plaintiff owned a twenty-five (25%) percent interest in the property by way of an unrecorded agreement. 
The relevant facts of, as well as a link to, the case are set forth below.

This week we wanted to bring your attention to an interesting decision out of the 2^nd Department which held, in part, that an unrecorded Easement for ingress/egress could be enforced by the benefitted property owner based on Constructive Notice to the burdened property owner. 

The relevant facts of, as well as a link to, the case are set forth below.

This week we wanted to supplement our October 31, 2023, Title Tuesday which discussed NYC Local Law 31 of 2020 (“LL 31”) which went into effect on August 9, 2020 (the “Effective Date”) and requires certain property owners to complete at least one (1) investigation for the presence of lead-based paint utilizing an X-Ray Fluorescence (XRF) analyzer by no later than August 9, 2025 (the “Effective Date”). 
 
A link to the October 31, 2023, Title Tuesday email is set forth below.
https://www.homeabstractcorp.com/bulletin/lead-based-paint-inspections
 
While it is commonly known that LL 31 requires all Residential Apartments in covered properties to be tested for lead utilizing an X-Ray Fluorescence (XRF) analyzer before the Effective Date (unless an Apartment qualifies for a specific Exemption), what many are not aware of is that NYC Local Law 111 of 2023 (“LL 111”) now supplements LL-31 and requires that all Common Areas of covered buildings be tested in similar fashion.  The deadline to complete the XRF testing for all Common Areas and report results is due by August 9, 2025, as well.  

A link to LL 111 is set forth below.  
https://intro.nyc/local-laws/2023-111
 
Please note that HPD will require submission of documented evidence of XRF lead testing in accordance with LL 31 and LL 111 as part of any attempt to clear Lead Paint Violations issued after August 9, 2025.
 
Below is a link to HPD’s website with additional important information regarding the current state of NYC’s Lead Paint testing requirements.
https://www.nyc.gov/site/hpd/services-and-information/lead-based-paint.page

Given that the Heirs Property Protection and Deed Theft Prevention Act of 2024 (New Real Property Law (RPL) § 424) went into effect on July 19, 2024 (the “Effective Date”), we wanted to take this opportunity to update you on what is known, as well as unknown, regarding the use of a Transfer on Death Deed (“TODD”). 

This week we wanted to remind you that the deadline for certain Property Owners to register their properties with the NYC Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD) will expire on September 1, 2024.  Specifically, Property Owners of residential buildings are required by law to register annually with HPD if that residential property is a multiple dwelling (3+ residential units) or a private dwelling (1-2 residential units) where neither the owner nor the owner's immediate family resides in the premises.  In addition to the annual filing, Building registrations must also be filed whenever ownership changes or whenever the information on a valid registration changes (ie.  new managing agent or site management).

Over this past weekend you may have read news articles summarizing the conviction and criminal sentence handed out to convicted fraudster, Marcus Wilcher, for his role as the leader of a Queens deed theft ring, who together with co-conspirators (including a now disbarred attorney), targeted elderly or disabled Queens County residents to “steal” their homes using false identity documentation and imposter “Sellers.” 

This week we wanted to draw your attention to an interesting decision out of the 1^st Department, which held, in part, that Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (“RPAPL”) Section 881 (“Access to adjoining property to make improvements or repairs”), would not support an award of license fees, legal costs and expenses for the repair of a retaining wall that straddled the property line between two adjoining properties absent an affirmative showing of “substantial interference” with the use and enjoyment of the access area utilized to make the required repairs. 
The relevant facts of, as well as a link to, the case are set forth below.