As we celebrate Independence Day, all of us at Home Abstract Corp. would like to wish you and your family a safe, happy, and relaxing Fourth of July.

This year is especially meaningful as our nation celebrates 250 years of American Independence. It's a time to reflect on the freedoms we enjoy and appreciate the opportunities they create for our families, businesses and the communities we call home.

When: April 29th, 2026

Time: 11:00am-12:00pm via gotowebinar.com

Topic: As cyber threats become more advanced, attorneys must safeguard client data and maintain secure digital practices. This CLE provides a practical overview of key risks, including phishing, ransomware, data breaches, and insider threats.

Today is a very special day for our family at Home Abstract Corp. — we are proud and humbled to celebrate our 49th Anniversary!

On this day in 1977, we opened our doors with a simple mission: to deliver an exceptional experience and unparalleled service to our valued clients. 

Continuing Legal Education Seminar (CLE)

We wanted to take this opportunity to alert you to recent legislation (Assembly Bill A2739) signed by Governor Hochul on December 12, 2025, which is designed to directly address the disruptive practices of mortgage servicers who return or destroy payoff checks due to minor discrepancies. As you know, our own Mark D’Addona currently serves as the President of the New York State Land Title Association (NYSLTA) and on his watch, NYSLTA has actively lobbied the legislature to get this important Bill passed into law.

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. 

We are writing this week to remind you that, effective July 1, 2025, the NYS Department of State Licensing Services Division will require the use of a Revised Property Condition Disclosure Statement (“PCDS”) to satisfy a Seller’s disclosure requirements in accordance with Article 14 of the Real Property Law. The new PCDS form adds instructions on where to find more information on septic system operation and maintenance on the Department of Health website. 

This week we wanted to draw your attention to an interesting decision out of the Appellate Division, Second Department, which, in analyzing the Doctrine of Ademption as it related to a Specific Bequest of Real Property in a Will, affirmed a Lower Court’s Order awarding Summary Judgment to a petitioner’s claim and enforced the Specific Bequest despite the decedent not owning a fee interest in the disputed property at the time of her death.
 The relevant facts of, as well as a link to, the case are set forth below. 

In case you missed the recent article in the N.Y. Real Property Law Journal (“NYRPLJ”) discussing the Practical Location Doctrine (see Actions Speak Louder Than Deeds: How a Neighbor’s Silence Rewrote Property Lines (NYRPLJ 2025, Vol. 53, No 1, pages 4-7)), we wanted to take this opportunity to alert you to this interesting option to potentially settle boundary line disputes between neighboring property owners.  The Practical Location Doctrine differs from a claim for Adverse Possession in that a party seeking to acquire title to disputed land need only satisfy the two (2) following elements to succeed in their claim:

This week we wanted to bring to your attention new legislation signed by Governor Hochul that has amended Section 6 of the Tax Law as to how NYS Tax Warrants will be indexed and related documents will be indexed going forward as of July 1, 2025 (the “Effective Date”). 

This week we wanted to bring to your attention a decision out of the Appellate Division, Second Department which analyzed the requirements of, and differences between, Appurtenant Easements and Prescriptive Easements. 
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 reversed a lower court’s order that had granted Summary Judgment to a Mortgagee in a foreclosure action based, in part, on the fact that the deed transferring mortgaged Premises was executed after the Grantor’s date of death. 
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 affirmed a Lower Court’s Order and imposed an Equitable Mortgage upon Real Property notwithstanding that the recorded mortgage failed to include a Legal Description of the mortgaged property and the last deed of record included a defective legal description. 
The relevant facts of, as well as a link to, the case are set forth below.

Continuing Legal Education Seminar (CLE)

When: May 21st,2025
Time: 11:00am-12:00pm via ZOOM
Topic: Understanding Title Insurance and Underwriting for Condominiums

This webinar will explore common issues related to condominiums that can impact title policies, and provide key insights on what to watch for in order to better protect your client.

This week we wanted to draw your attention to an interesting decision out of the Appellate Division, Second Department, which reversed a lower Court’s Order that had vacated a deed of record and confirmed the fact that a Power of Attorney (POA) that was validly executed under the Statute in effect at the time the POA was executed, remained valid to transfer Real Property notwithstanding that the executed POA would not have been valid if executed subsequent to changes to the Statute. 
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 from the Appellate Division, Second Department which reversed a Lower Court’s Order and granted Plaintiff-Purchaser’s motion for summary judgment directing the return of purchaser’s downpayment upon a theory of breach of contract based on the fact that Defendant-Seller was unable to timely clear of record a recorded Deed that clouded seller’s claim to exclusive fee title. 
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 a recent decision out of the Appellate Division, Second Department which affirmed a lower court’s order and held that “[i]n the absence of a stay of the sale or an outstanding notice of pendency, title of the purchaser in good faith and for value "is . . . insulate[d] . . . from the effects of an appellate reversal" of an Order granting a Judgment of Foreclosure and Sale (citations omitted). 
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 issued by the Appellate Division, Second Department which affirmed a Lower Court’s Order dismissing the Plaintiffs’ Complaint and cancelling a Notice of Pendency based, in part, on the fact that the Plaintiffs failed to provide sufficient evidence that they were entitled to “tacking” their time of possession of the property onto their predecessor in title’s time of possession to satisfy the statutory time period required to support a claim of Adverse Possession. 
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 upheld a Lower Court’s Order vesting title in the name of a Trust Beneficiary and confirming that there was no evidence of undue influence exercised by the trust beneficiary.

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

Today we want to bring your attention to an interesting case decided by the Appellate Court, First Department which affirmed a Lower Court’s Order dismissing a Plaintiff/Lender’s Complaint against a Defendant/Title Company.  The Plaintiff’s Complaint, in part, sought Title Company’s defense and indemnification in a pending foreclosure action based on a Loan Policy issued in connection with an initial Mortgage; which Mortgage was thereafter assigned to a new Lender and consolidated with a new money mortgage to form a single, new lien on the property. 
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 from the Appellate Division, Second Department which reversed a Lower Court’s decision and remanded the case back to the Supreme Court to enter an amended Judgment in favor of defendant and declaring that the plaintiff's rights in and to the property are subject to the recorded easement for maintenance of the Williamsburg Bridge. 
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 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 thanAugust 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.

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 thanAugust 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.

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^ndDepartment 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.

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. 

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:

This week we wanted to remind you that on March 20, 2024 (the “Effective Date”), the legislation signed into law by Governor Hochul (A.1967/S.5400 enacted as Chapter 484 of the Laws of 2023) amending relevant Sections of Article 14 of the Real Property Law (Sections 460-467) will take effect and change how many Sellers (and their attorneys) handle the Seller’s obligation to deliver a completed Property Condition Disclosure Statement (“PCDS”) to a prospective Purchaser on certain, covered Residential Real Estate transactions.

This week we wanted to bring your attention to Local Law 157 of 2016 (known as either “LL 157-16” or the “Gas Detector Law”) which requires the installation of natural gas detectors in all residential dwelling units (includes all private 1 2 Family, Class A Class B Multiple Dwellings), including those for short term 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.

This week we direct your attention to an interesting Appellate Court decision in the 1^st Department which affirmed and modified a lower court ruling granting a Plaintiff-Purchaser’s motion for Summary Judgment for breach of contract. The decision was based, in part, on the fact that the Defendant-Sellers had failed to meet all of its contractual obligations before issuing Time of the Essence Letters to the Purchaser as a pre-cursor to holding Purchaser in default.
The relevant facts of, as well as a link to, the case are set forth below.

When: Wednesday, February 28th, 2024
Time: 11:00am-12:10pm via Webinar
Topic: Title Insurance Fact or Fiction
Join us as we take an in-depth look at what is and isn’t covered in a title policy. We will review policy coverages and the benefits of title insurance.

This week we wanted to draw your attention to a very interesting case out of the 2^nd Department which, in the context of determining the validity of a mortgage foreclosure action, tackled complex issues related to the difference between a Deed “void ab initio” vs. a Deed that may have been “voidable” as well as the effect of “Apparent Authority” of an Administrator to transfer title. 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 out of the 2^nd Department, which addressed and clarified, in part, how title vests when a property owner dies intestate regardless of whether an Administrator is appointed to transfer the decedent’s assets. The relevant facts of, as a well a link to, the case are set forth below:

In our ongoing efforts to keep you updated on relevant legislation that may affect you and your clients, this week we wanted to remind you that, pursuant to Article 323 of Title 28 of the NYC Administrative Code and 1 RCNY §103-13 of the NYC Department of Buildings (“DOB”) Rules and Regulations, owners of parking structures in certain Community Districts in all five (5) boroughs are required to have a one-time initial observation of their parking structure performed by, or under the direct supervision of, a qualified parking structure inspector (“QPSI”) and report the findings to DOB no later than August 1, 2024.

This week we wanted to draw your attention to a case decided in Albany County that, in reversing a lower court’s decision, rejected a Plaintiff/Purchaser’s claims for relief based on theories of breach of contract, fraudulent inducement, unjust enrichment and quantum meruit which included an analysis of the Property Condition Disclosure Statement delivered by Seller in accordance with the Real Property Condition Disclosure Act (“RPDA” Article 14 – RPP 462). The relevant facts, as well as a link to the case, are set forth below.

This week we wanted to draw your attention to a case decided in Albany County that, in reversing a lower court’s decision, rejected a Plaintiff/Purchaser’s claims for relief based on theories of breach of contract, fraudulent inducement, unjust enrichment and quantum meruit which included an analysis of the Property Condition Disclosure Statement delivered by Seller in accordance with the Real Property Condition Disclosure Act (“RPDA” Article 14 – RPP 462). The relevant facts, as well as a link to the case, are set forth below.