This week we wanted to remind you that Retaining Wall Inspection Reports must be filed with the NYC Department of Buildings (“DOB”) no later than  December 31, 2025 (the “Inspection Filing Deadline”) for all properties located in New York County (Manhattan) that have a retaining wall that faces a public right-of-way and has any portion of the wall extending ten (10’) feet or higher at any point.

The inspection must be done by a Qualified Retaining Wall Inspector (QRWI) and the report must be filed with DOB before the Inspection Filing Deadline.

As timing would have it and as pointed out to us by a couple of our valued readers, Governor Hochul executed very recent legislation (effective 10/16/2025) to amend Real Property Law § 339-aa, which now requires Condominium Boards seeking to foreclose on  Common Charge Liens to provide notice to a unit owner “at least ninety days prior to the commencement of a foreclosure proceeding at the property address and any other address of record”  (see attached Revised Real Property Law § 339-aa).  The new legislation also requires that the notice “be in fourteen-point type and shall inform the owner that the board intends to file an action for foreclosure to enforce the lien and shall state the address of the property and the specific amount due.”

This week the Home Team wanted to bring your attention to an interesting decision out of the Appellate Division, First Department, which in affirming a Lower Court’s decision, held that a Condominium Board was not required to serve a 90-day notice upon Defendant pursuant to RPAPL  §1304 as a precondition of bringing a Real Property Law § 339-aa action to foreclose upon a condominium common charge lien. 
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 Appellate Division, Second Department, which in part, modified a lower court’s Order in a Partition Action, and directed the award of monies to reimburse a property owner for expenses he incurred in acquiring and maintaining the property, which expenses exceeded his percentage of ownership of the property.  
The relevant facts of, as well as a link to, the case are set forth below.

This week we wanted to let you know that the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) has issued a temporary order granting exemptive relief from the reporting requirements of the Anti-Money Laundering Regulations for Residential Real Estate Transfers Rule (RRE Rule) discussed in our September 16, 2025 Title Tuesday until March 1, 2026 (the “New Effective Date”).
We are including below the following Links which will give you relevant information regarding both the reporting requirements and Effective Date extension for this new law:

This week we wanted to bring your attention to an interesting decision out of the Appellate Division, First Department, which, in part, confirmed that an improperly executed Right of First Refusal purchase option did not render title “Unmarketable” or place a “Cloud on Title” where the option holder had only exercised its purchase rights on a prior offer to the Seller. 
The relevant facts of, as well as a link to, the case are set forth below:  

This week we wanted to review a question that comes up from time to time concerning whether a Life Estate can be created by a Grantor in favor of a “Stranger to the Deed.” The technical answer is no (see Sganga v. Grund, 1 AD3d 342; 2003 NY Slip Op 18026 (2003) - Link to case below) but there is a way to accomplish the same intended result if the transferring Deed is correctly drafted.

This week we wanted to alert you to a significant rule change implemented by the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) as to the new reporting requirements for certain covered real estate transactions.   The new rule is designed to combat and deter money laundering by increasing transparency in the U.S. residential real estate sector without limiting the reporting to certain targeted geographical areas. The rule change requires, on a nationwide basis, certain persons involved in real estate closings and settlements to report information to FinCEN about specified transfers of residential real estate that are a high risk for illicit finance.
The final rule will take effect on December 1, 2025 (the “Effective Date”) and will apply under the following circumstances:

This week we wanted to take a moment to share some exciting news with all of you. Last night, our very own Mark D’Addona was officially sworn in as President of the New York State Land Title Association (NYSLTA).  For those of you who might not be aware, NYSLTA is a professional trade organization that represents the land title industry in New York State. This includes title insurance companies, title agents, abstractors, attorneys, and others involved in the real estate and title insurance process.  NYSTLA works tirelessly to help develop and promote standards, ethics, and best practices for professionals in the title industry, to offer continuing education and training seminars to all real estate professionals, to monitor and recommend beneficial changes to proposed and existing laws and regulations affecting title insurance and real estate transactions in New York all with the aim of ensuring that homebuyers and other consumers receive fair and accurate information in real estate closings.  Additionally, NYSLTA routinely advocates, on behalf of the title industry as a whole, before the New York State Legislature, regulatory agencies (like the NY Department of Financial Services (“DFS”), and other governmental bodies to protect its interests. 

This week we wanted to bring your attention to an interesting decision out of the Appellate Division, Second Department, which, in affirming a lower Court’s decisions, held in part, that a Title Company is not liable for aiding and abetting an alleged fraudulent transaction absent conclusive proof showing that Title Company had actual knowledge of the fraud and offered substantial assistance in effectuating the fraudulent transaction. 
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 decision out of the Appellate Division, Second Department, which, in modifying a Lower’s Court’s order, confirmed that the owner of a property that is burdened by an Easement for Ingress and Egress in favor of a neighboring property may, in fact “restrict” the applicable easement area by installing gates and/or fences (collectively “Easement Encroachments”), provided such Easement Encroachments do not substantially impair the neighbor’s actual right of passage via the Easement. 
The relevant facts of, as well as a link to, the case are set forth below.

This week we wanted to remind you that Retaining Wall Inspection Reports are due to be filed with the NYC Department of Buildings (“DOB”) for all properties located in the New York County (Manhattan) with a retaining wall that faces a public right-of-way and has any portion of the wall extending ten (10’) feet or higher at any point on or before December 31, 2025 (the “Inspection Filing Deadline”).

This week we wanted to draw your attention to an interesting decision out of the Appellate Divisions, Third Department, that held, in relevant part, that an oral agreement between neighbors for the continued use and access by the Defendant of a water delivery system designed to primarily benefit the Plaintiff’s property violated the Statute of Frauds and was therefore unenforceable. 
The relevant facts of the attached case are set forth below.

Supplementing our 10/1/2024 Title Tuesday email regarding the filing requirements mandated under 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 for certain “Covered Buildings”, please note that the New York City Department of Buildings (DOB) has now given property owners an option to extend the filing deadline for LL97 emission reports but only if a formal request for such extension is submitted to DOB before August 29, 2025.

We are often asked for clarification as to whether violations issued by the Environmental Control Board (ECB) have to be paid and/or cleared of record to allow a Seller to transfer title to a Purchaser free and clear of such ECB Violations.  The answer is not always clear-cut and will depend on how the ECB Violation was issued and/or docketed.   

This week we wanted to bring your attention to an interesting decision out of the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, which affirmed a Lower Court’s Order confirming the validity of a Deed that transferred title from the Executor of an Estate to a bona fide purchaser for value despite the fact that the Decedent’s Will included a specific bequest of the real property.  Both the Lower Court’s and Appellate Court’s decisions were based, in part, on several texts and emails between the parties, as well as the parties’ attorneys, acknowledging and agreeing to the terms of sale by the Executor. 
The relevant facts of, as well as a link to, the case are set forth below.

This week the Home Team wanted to draw your attention to an interesting case out of the Appellate Division, Second Department, which Appellate Order reversed a Lower Court’s decision and held, in part, that, absent a showing of fraud, collusion, mistake or misconduct by the foreclosing party, a property owner’s right to redeem a mortgage in a foreclosure proceeding had expired immediately upon the foreclosure sale. 
The relevant facts of, as well as a link to, the case are set forth below.

Supplementing our March 5, 2024 Title Tuesday, this week we wanted to update you on pending legislation that will revise Local law 157 of 2016 (“LL-157-16”) which requires the installation of natural gas alarms (the “Detectors”) in all residential dwelling units (includes all private 1 & 2 Family, Class A & Class B Multiple Dwellings), including those properties used for short term residential  use (hotel etc.), that are not owner occupied. Other than owner occupied dwelling units, the only other properties exempt from the requirements of LL 157-16 are buildings with no natural gas piping or service.  Below is a link to our March 5, 2024 Title Tuesday for further information on the initial revision of LL-157-16.

This week we wanted to alert you to an interesting case decided by the Appellate Division, Second Department, which affirmed a Lower Court’s Order holding, in part, that a Condominium Board’s attempt to amend a House Rule restricting certain dogs from being on the property was not protected from Court review under the Business Judgment Rule.  The Court further held that the proposed House Rule was null and void for failure to obtain approval from Unit Owners holding at least 66 2/3% of the common interests as required by the Condominium’s By-Laws, which was the threshold needed to amend the Condominium Declaration.
The relevant facts of, as well as a link to, the case are set forth below.

Supplementing our August 6, 2024 Title Tuesday which discussed the lead testing and reporting requirements set forth in NYC Local Law 31 of 2020 (“LL 31”) and NYC Local Law 111 of 2023 (“LL 111”), we wanted to take this opportunity to remind you that the deadline to complete the XRF testing for all covered properties and to report results is due by August 9, 2025 (the “Effective Date”).   Please note that LL 31 requires all Residential Apartments in covered properties to be tested for lead utilizing an X-Ray Fluorescence (XRF) analyzer (unless an Apartment qualifies for a specific Exemption), and NYC Local Law 111 of 2023 (“LL 111”) supplements LL-31 and requires that all Common Areas of covered buildings be tested in similar fashion by the Effective Date.