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.

This week we wanted to bring your attention to an interesting decision rendered in the Supreme Court, New York County, which, in part, granted a Petitioner/Owner’s motion to vacate a Mechanic’s Lien on the basis that the stated work failed to meet the requirements of Lien Law Section 2. 

This week we wanted to bring your attention to an interesting decision out of the Third Departments that affirmed a lower Court’s Order granting Plaintiff use and access rights over an Easement for ingress and egress notwithstanding that the grant of Easement had been expressly terminated as to adjoining lots but not specifically terminated against the Plaintiff’s Lot. 
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 litigated in front of Justice Ruschelsman in the Supreme Court, Kings County. Justice Ruchelsman’s decision, in part, denied Plaintiff’s motion for Summary Judgment for causes of action for Specific Performance and Breach of Contract arising out of a Real Estate transaction where the Seller properly established a Time of the Essence (“TOE”) Closing due to Purchaser’s failure to timely close title. Among other claims, the Plaintiff-Purchaser, unsuccessfully attempted to argue that a contractual provision granting Purchaser a 10-day right to cure certain defaults also served to automatically extend any Time of the Essence Closing Date set forth in the Seller’s TOE Notice.

This week we wanted to direct your attention to an interesting decision out of the Second Department where the Appellate Court upheld a lower court’s Order granting Summary Judgment and dismissed a foreclosure action against a Defendant-Purchaser where the underlying mortgage was presumably paid in full at closing, but the Wired payoff funds never reached the Lender’s actual account.  The decision, in part, turned on the fact that the error in providing and/or crediting the correct Payoff Bank’s account rested with the Payoff Bank and/or its own representative(s) and not with the Purchaser or its Wiring bank.
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 2^nd Department wherein the Court applied the doctrines of Caveat Emptor and Merger in denying a Plaintiffs’ causes of action sounding in fraud and deceit, misrepresentation and breach of contract arising out of a dispute involving the sale of real property in Queens county.  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 2^nd Department wherein the Court analyzed and rejected Plaintiff’s claims for Adverse Possession and Easements by Necessity and Prescription.
The relevant facts of, and a link to, the case are set forth below.

This week we wanted to take the opportunity to review the proper method of calculating NYC and NYS Transfer Taxes due on the transfer of Real Property in situations where a Purchaser is contractually obligated to pay some or all of the Transfer Taxes.   In a typical Real Estate Transaction, unless otherwise required by the terms of the Contract, the Seller pays the standard NYS and NYC Transfer Taxes and, if applicable, the Purchaser pays a Special Additional NYS “Mansion” Tax.   As you know, several factors must be considered when calculating the appropriate Transfer Taxes due on a particular transaction including, but not limited to, the monetary consideration being paid by Purchaser at acquisition, the type of Property being sold and the County where the Property is located.  For your convenience and reference, below is a link to our website which lays out a summary of the applicable Tax Rates effective as of the last rate change date (7/1/2019).

 “A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.”  We certainly should recognize this famous quote from William Shakespeare’s play – Romeo and Juliet, but is this always the case?  While that sentiment may be true in the literary world, the misspelling of one’s name (especially the sur name) can lead to unwanted stress and complications in your real estate transactions when such spelling errors appear in recorded Judgments.  This week we wanted to provide some color and guidance on clearance obligations where a recorded Judgment against a purported property owner or purchaser appears in your Title Report, but also includes a spelling/typographical error in the actual Judgment document that was submitted for recording.

This week we wanted to remind you that the Initial observation reports for parking garages required under Article 323 of Title 28 of the NYC Administrative Code and 1 RCNY §103-13 of the NYC Department of Buildings Rules and Regulations are due for all parking garages in the City of New York are due by August 1, 2024 (unless an official Inspection Report for said Parking Garage has already been filed with DOB on or after January 2022). Please note that Property Owners of Parking Garages located in Manhattan in Community Districts 8, 9, 10, 11 & 12 as well as in all Community Districts throughout Brooklyn, can elect to file their Inspection Reports by August 1, 2024, and avoid the requirement to file the Initial Observation Report.

This week we wanted to bring your attention to an interesting case decided in the 1^st Department which dismissed an application that sought to overturn a foreclosure auction sale based on a theory that the process and procedures set forth in the Order were not followed in a Commercially Reasonable manner. In denying the Appellant’s claim, the Court’s Order gave some guidance and explanation as to what factors were weighed in determining what constitutes “Commercial Reasonableness.”
The relevant facts of, as well as a link to, the case are set forth below.

This week we wanted to take the opportunity to discuss an often-misunderstood topic in the Title Industry - the use of the “Ancient Mortgage” Doctrine to allow a Title Company to insure the transfer of Title over an unsatisfied mortgage of record. 

This week we wanted to bring your attention to an interesting decision out of the 2^nd Department, which ultimately held, in part, that a Defendant-mortgagor could not sustain causes of action designed to overturn a Judgment of Foreclosure because they were barred by the Doctrine of Collateral Estoppel.  The relevant facts of, as well as a link to, the case are set forth below.   

After entry of a judgment of foreclosure and sale, the Defendant-mortgagor commenced an action to quiet title seeking to have the mortgage loan rescinded. Among the causes of action asserted in the quiet title action were allegations of fraud, intentional infliction of emotional distress, violation of federal statutes, and unjust enrichment. The Supreme Court, Kings County, dismissed the complaint as being barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel, and the Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the lower court’s Order. According to the Appellate Division, “[t]he issues raised by the plaintiff in this action were or could have been litigated in the foreclosure action, and [the plaintiff] is therefore precluded from relitigating them in this action…” Savory v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 2022 NY Slip Op 01060, decided February 16, 2022, is posted at
https://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2022/2022_01060.htm0

When: Wednesday, April 24th,2024
Time: 11:00am-12:00pm via Webinar
Topic: Cyber Security: Survival of the Securest

Please join us for a one hour webinar as we review and discuss the numerous ways in which fraudsters are able to dupe people into helping them commit fraud. This presentation will focus on ways we can spot red flags in an attempt to prevent fraud in real estate transactions. 

Amount of Credits: 1 Credit Hour-General Practice

This credit satisfies the new CLE requirement for cyber security, privacy and data protection.

Home Abstract Corp.
in conjunction with First American Title Insurance Company, invite you to a complimentary continuing legal education seminar.

We wanted to take this opportunity to remind you that NYC has stepped up its enforcement of Local Law 111 of 2022 (LL 111/2022) which went into effect on April 1, 2023, and amended Subdivision a of Section 16-120 of Chapter 1 of Title 16 of the Administrative Code of the City of New York, as amended by Local Law number 22 for the year 2002.

Continuing Legal Education Seminar (CLE)
When: Wednesday, April 24th,2024
Time: 11:00am-12:00pm via Webinar
Topic: Cyber Security: Survival of the Securest

Please join us for a one hour webinar as we review and discuss the numerous ways in which fraudsters are able to dupe people into helping them commit fraud.
This presentation will focus on ways we can spot red flags in an attempt to prevent fraud in real estate transactions.

This week we want to draw your attention to an interesting decision out of the 3^rd Department, where property owners unsuccessfully attempted utilize RPAPL Section 1951 (“Extinguishment of a non-substantial restrictions on the use of land”) in an action to quiet title and eliminate an Easement which burdened their property with an easement creating a walking and recreational trail. Unfortunately for the Plaintiffs, both the Supreme Court, Saratoga County, as well as the Appellate Division, Third Department, held in favor of the Defendant/Respondent, the Town of Wilton, deciding, in part, that no cause of action could be maintained under RPAPL Section 1951 in the underlying action. The relevant facts of, as well as a link to, the case are set forth below:

Here at Home, we are always looking for ways to provide better service to our trusted clients. In keeping with that goal, we are very excited to let you know that our new Website is now up and running with some new enhancements. In designing this site, we made every effort to provide you with a series of valuable online tools to better enhance your practice while also simplifying access to your individual Title orders. Some of the major features of the new Website are as follows: