This week we wanted to bring your attention to an Appellate Division, 2^nd Department, case which ultimately rejected a petitioner’s claim for a variance to locate his inground swimming pool wholly on his property but in violation of the Town of Islip’s Zoning Code set back requirements. The lower Court had initially granted the Petitioner’s application for a variance, but the Appellate Court overturned the lower court decision based on its review of the Town’s Zoning Board of Appeals (“ZBA”) analysis of the facts included in the variance application. A summary of those relevant facts, along with a link to the case, are set forth below.

This week we wanted to bring your attention to a First Department case wherein the Appellate Division held that an Ex-Husband’s Judgment Creditor’s lien claim was subordinate to the Ex-Wife’s unrecorded equitable interest in a Condominium Unit that the couple had acquired during their marriage. The relevant facts of the case, as well as a link to the decision, are summarized below.

This week we wanted to direct your attention to a very interesting case out of the Fourth Department which involved an Executor who, without Surrogate’s Court authority, sold a property that was left to a Specific Devisee under the probated Last Will and Testament of the decedent. As discussed in detail in the Court Order (see Link to case below), while it is undisputed under New York law that the interest of a specific devisee vests immediately on the death of a decedent, under the specific facts of this case, the Appellate Division nonetheless refused to void the Deed and quieted Title of the property in the name of the Bona Fide Purchasers. The facts of the case are summarized as follows:

Today we wanted to highlight a recent Third Department case where the Appellate Court overturned a Supreme Court Order granting Summary Judgment to the Plaintiff who claimed adverse possession of a portion of an easement which was enclosed by a fence and used for outdoor seating and dining. The facts of the case are summarized below, and the decision turned on a question of fact as to whether the use of the easement for enclosed outdoor seating and dining was permissive (as opposed to hostile) and under a claim of right.

We wanted to pass along an interesting case (Sterling Recoveries, Inc. v. Alejandro Erazo; 2022 NY Slip Op 50662(U); 75 Misc. 3d 1225(A)) which highlights the importance of timely renewing expiring Judgments on real property to avoid the possibility of a “lien gap.” In analyzing the Plaintiff’s motion for an Order seeking to renew an expired Judgment, the Court laid out the below summary of the legislative history of the relevant CPLR Sections identifying the distinction in the duration between a New York money judgment (20 years) vs. a Judgment resulting in a real property lien (10 years), as well as the methods to renew such expiring real property liens:

This week we wanted to direct your attention to a recent US District Court decision wherein the Court dismissed the Plaintiff/Owner’s claim for damages against an Underwriter seeking coverage under a Fee Owner’s Policy related to the post-closing discovery of an unrecorded Landmark Designation. This case highlights the importance of drafting your contracts to include Seller representations related to the existence, or lack thereof, of Landmark Designations, as the Owner’s Policy will not provide coverage for such claims.

We have been continuously monitoring the situation involving the cyber security intrusion that shut down access to the Suffolk County Clerk’s office on September 8, 2022. Unfortunately, while the Clerk’s office has acknowledged the serious impact that this closure has caused to the Real Estate Industry, there is no definitive timeline to restore access to complete searches or record documents.

As you may know, the Suffolk County Clerk’s Office experienced a cyber-security intrusion on September 8, 2022, that has resulted in multiple computer systems being shut down. As a result, examiners in Suffolk County are currently unable to conduct searches of the Suffolk County land records, Suffolk County Clerk’s docket and other databases. Additionally, at the present time, it is not possible to record documents with the Suffolk County Clerk.

This week we wanted to bring your attention to a very interesting 2022 Second Department Court decision which ultimately enforced a forged deed based on the controlling provisions of New York Partnership Law § 51. A summary of the case facts are set forth below:

We wanted to take this opportunity to revisit the requirements for an individual to unilaterally sever an existing Joint Tenancy interest in Real Property. In the recent case Harmon v. Misholy, 2022 NY Slip Op 22102, decided April 8, 2022, posted at https://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2022/2022_22102.htm, the Respondent was a tenant under a certain lease that had been executed, via a POA, by one of the Joint Tenant owners on a parcel of real property in Suffolk County.

This week we wanted to draw your attention to a recent trend that has come to our attention whereby a Real Estate Broker and Homeowner enter into a Homeowner Benefit Agreement (HBA) related to the future listing and sale of a particular Property. The basic concept of the HBA is that the Broker would provide an up-front cash payment to the homeowner in return for a future exclusive right to act as the listing agent when the owner decides to sell their property.

The below case discusses the priority of a " Lien for common charges" filed against a Non-Residential Condominium Unit where the applicable Condominium Declaration and By-Laws specifically granted priority of the Common Charge Lien over and above that of any Commercial Mortgage on the Unit. The team thought this would be a good case for you to review as it highlights the importance of closely reviewing your Condominium’s governing documents when evaluating Common Charge Lien priority for a Non-Residential Condominium Unit.

The following information is in reference to the TOEPP (Extended Policy Protection). This extended protection is available for 1 to 4 family dwellings, as well as condominiums. The fee for this extended coverage is 120% of the straight fee premium and it lasts the lifetime that your client owns the property. 

Today we wanted to draw your attention to an issue we have been seeing more and more of these days. The facts in the below case (West 81st Garage, LLC v. New York City Department of Buildings; citations listed below) revolved around whether signage, installed on a property without permits, could be “grandfathered” in based on similar signage which was installed prior to a 2019 change to Section 3 of NYC Local Law 28.

We wanted to take this opportunity to remind you of a change in the way the NYC Department of Finance (DOF) assesses Restored Real Estate Taxes after a particular Owner (the “Entitled Owner”) is no longer eligible for a recognized Exemption. As an example, in the past, if a property was benefitted by a Veteran’s Exemption and the Entitled Owner died (assume for this example that the Entitled Owner was not married), the Veteran’s Exemption benefitting the Property would terminate as of the Entitled Owner’s date of death and DOF, upon being advised of the Entitled Owner’s death, would retroactively assess the Restored Taxes commencing in the tax period in which the date of death occurred.

We wanted to take this opportunity to remind you of the importance of properly ordering a Title Read Letter from the NYC Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) to ascertain the status of the Seller’s Water/Sewer account prior to Closing title on your transaction. As you likely know, DEP has restricted 3^rd party, non-owners’ access to on-line Water/Sewer account information. Title companies can no longer obtain copies of prior DEP invoices or billing period information to assist you with your adjustments or account status inquiries.

Today we wanted to draw your attention to a recent case which highlights the importance of the specific language you use in your contracts to define the Purchaser’s and Seller’s respective obligations regarding post-closing adjustments for real estate tax refunds. The relevant facts of 69 Pinehurst LLC v. Sixty Nine Pinehurst Avenue Associates LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 30681, decided March 1, 2022 are described below.

Criminals have become more knowledgeable about our business and have learned how to take advantage of a busy real estate market. While we have all seen instructions on how too prevent wire fraud, below are a few tips and reminders so we may all stay vigilant.

Below is a recent court case involving an unsuccessful title insurance claim arising out of litigation over use and ownership of a driveway; a situation your clients would certainly like to avoid if they are sharing a driveway with a neighbor here in New York. The team thought this would be a good case for you to have on hand as a quick reference guide in the event that you encounter a similar set of facts. This case highlights the importance of reviewing all Survey Exceptions raised in your Title Reports.

The new Short Form Power of Attorney has been in affect since June 13, 2021 (just over a year), we figured we would send this out as a quick refresher.

Please also note, that all existing powers that were valid under the laws at the time they were executed are grandfathered and will remain valid subject to any further guidance.