This week we wanted to bring your attention to an interesting decision out of the Second Department in a case entitled Choudhari v. Choudhari, 220 AD3d 835 (2023) which affirmed and modified, in part, a Supreme Court Order declaring two (2) recorded deeds null and void based on the fact that the Power of Attorney used to effectuate the deed transfers did not expressly grant the Attorney in Fact authorization to “gift” the real property to himself or other parties.
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 decision out of the Appellate Division, Second Department, which overturned a Lower Court’s Order and clarified that an allegation that a legally married couple were “living separate lives” was insufficient to sever a Tenancy by the Entirety ownership of Real Property. 
The relevant facts of, as well as a link to, the case are set forth below.

There has been another significant development in the ongoing litigation surrounding the reporting obligations for filing Beneficial Ownership Information (“BOI”) for both domestic and foreign reporting companies required under the Corporate Transparency Act: 31 U.S.C. 5336 (“CTA”).   Given the February 18, 2025, decision by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas in Smith, et al. v. U.S. Department of the Treasury, et al., 6:24-cv-00336 (E.D. Tex.), beneficial ownership information (BOI) reporting requirements under the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) are once again back in effect.  In an effort to give reporting companies reasonable time to comply with the latest Court Order, and complete their BOI filings, the Department of the Treasury (“FinCEN”) is generally extending the deadline 30 calendar days from February 19, 2025, for most companies.  Therefore, absent further Court Order(s) or extensions from FinCEN, BOI filings must be completed on or before March 21, 2025.

Below is a link to the FinCEN website where you can both obtain up to date information on the CTA and also complete your BOI filings.

https://www.fincen.gov/boi

As we previously advised, the reporting requirements for filing  Beneficial Ownership Information (“BOI”) for both domestic and foreign reporting companies required under the Corporate Transparency Act: 31 U.S.C. 5336 (“CTA”) remain on hold pending appeals of multiple Federal lawsuits so, at the present time, no personal information regarding the members, managers, shareholder or principals of these entities needs to be filed with the US Treasury Department (“FinCEN”) until further notice.

In our ongoing efforts to bring you updates on important legislation that may affect your clients, we wanted to let you know of pending legislation, H.R.736 - Protect Small Businesses from Excessive Paperwork Act of 2025, which the House of Representatives recently passed by unanimous vote.  This Bill was sponsored by Rep. Zachary Nunn of Iowa and, if fully enacted into law, will effectively delay, for one year, any BOI reporting requirements only for entities formed prior to January 1, 2024, until January 1, 2026.  This proposed legislation, if enacted into law, will only become relevant if the pending appeals in the Federal cases are decided to lift or modify the current injunction that is in place which stays the CTA reporting requirements.  We have provided you with a link below so that you can track the progress of H.R. 736 as it winds its way through the legislative process.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/736/text/ih

Additionally, while we await final decision on the Federal appeals that will ultimately decide the constitutionality of the CTA reporting requirements, we can let you know that FinCEN has stated that if the BOI reporting requirements are reinstated by decision of the Appeals Court, FinCEN would allow at least 30 days for businesses to comply with such BOI requirements from the date of the Court Order.  Below is a link to the FinCEN website which includes regular updates on all pending litigation and alert notices related to the CTA.

https://www.fincen.gov/boi

This week we wanted to bring to your attention an interesting decision rendered in the Appellate Division, 2^nd Department which affirmed a lower Court’s Order dismissing a Plaintiff’s claim for partition and sale of marital property where a prior Judgment of Divorce, among other relief, had effectively resolved all claims for equitable distribution and property distribution between the parties. 
The relevant fact 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 Second Department which upheld a lower court’s Order appointing the Executor of a deceased husband’s (the “Plaintiff”) estate as the receiver of certain property to transfer title because the wife (the “Defendant”) failed to cooperate in effectuating the transfer of title to the property, as required by the judgment of divorce.
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 decision issued by Justice Andrew Borrok in the Commercial Division of the Supreme Court, New York County, which held, in relevant part, that absent an Intercreditor Agreement to the contrary, a Mezzanine Lender had no standing to challenge the foreclosure proceeding brought by the Mortgagee holding the first mortgage on a property. 
The relevant facts of, as well as a link to, the case are set forth below.

This week we wanted to alert you to the fact that the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) is planning on both extending the recording time for Mortgagees to record their security documents as well as modifying their procedures to request Payoff Letters for the “Partial Claim Mortgages.”   If you are not familiar with a “Partial Claim Mortgage, please note that t he Federal Housing Administration (FHA), as part of HUD, offers loan modification programs for FHA-insured loans (FHA Loan) to homeowners facing financial hardships by authorizing the deferral of some or all defaulted amounts.  These deferred amounts may be set aside for future payoff, resulting in a modification to the loan.  As part of the modification process, the deferred amounts are assigned to HUD and a second mortgage is recorded to secure the additional obligation.  The mortgage in favor of HUD is referred to as a “Partial Claim Mortgage.”

This week we wanted to draw your attention to an interesting case decided in the Third Department wherein the Appellate Division affirmed a Lower Court’s Order granting Plaintiff’s Summary Judgment motion enforcing Plaintiff’s rights with respect to two (2) separate easements established in the Deeds which transferred title to the Parties. 
The relevant facts of, as well as a link to, the case are set forth below.

This week we wanted to update you on additional information coming from the NYC Department of Housing, Preservation and Development (HPD) regarding the possible penalties that can be assessed for failure to comply with the lead paint testing and reporting requirements required under NYC Local Law 31 of 2020 (“LL 31”). As reported in our August 6, 2024 Title Tuesday email,  property owners of all tenant-occupied residential properties built prior to 1960 (or between 1960 and 1978 if lead paint is known to have been used in the building) must 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”).

Continuing Legal Education Seminar (CLE)

When: January 15th,2025
Time: 12:00pm-1:00pm via gotowebinar.com
Topic: Understanding the 2021 ALTA Policies and Changes to the NY Endorsements.

This webinar will discuss the changes and coverages in the new ALTA Policy, as well as the changes in NY Endorsements which may affect your client's upcoming closings and future transactions.

As we approach the end of the year, we just wanted to remind that the deadline to complete the initial annual parapet inspections for buildings covered under §§ 103-15 (Periodic observation of building parapets) of Local Law 126 of 2021 (LL 126) will expire on December 31, 2024. LL 126 requires annual inspections of all parapets by “a person competent to inspect parapets”. The law defines “a person competent to inspect parapets” by stating “…(T)his includes, but is not limited to, a bricklayer, building superintendent, handyman, mason or a person in a similar construction-related trade, architect, engineer, an inspector working for a New York State-authorized insurance company, a New York State-authorized building inspector or any other person capable of identifying hazards on the parapet.”

This week we are supplementing our December 3, 2024, Title Tuesday email regarding the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) reporting requirements. Please take not that the United States District Court, Eastern District of Texas, in a case entitled Texas Top Cop Shop, Inc., ET AL. vs. Merrick Garland, Attorney General of the United States, ET. AL. (citations omitted), recently issued an Opinion and Order which included a “nationwide injunction”, against the CTA reporting requirements has in effect (see pages 74-78 in the linked Opinion and Order below). Therefore, until further notice or decision from an Appellate Court, all filing requirements set forth in the CTA are suspended indefinitely. Home will continue to monitor this case and will provide future updates on the CTA as appropriate.

This week we want to take the opportunity to remind you that, under the Corporate Transparency Act: 31 U.S.C. 5336 (“CTA”), the deadline to report Beneficial Ownership Information (“BOI”) for certain covered Reporting Companies that were created or registered to do business before January 1, 2024, is expiring on January 1, 2025. Please note that any Reporting Company created or registered on or after January 1, 2024, but before January 1, 2025, will have ninety (90) days to file its initial BOI report from the earliest date of notice of its creation.

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.