This week we wanted to bring your attention to an interesting decision out of the 2^nd Department which addressed the issue as to whether the Estate of a Mortgagor was a “necessary party” defendant in a mortgage foreclosure action notwithstanding that the Complaint named the deceased Mortgagor’s sole heirs at law. The Supreme Court’s Order, in part, denied the Defendant’s motion for Summary Judgement to dismiss the Complaint for failure to name a necessary party.

This week we wanted to bring your attention to an Appellate Court decision out of the 2^nd Department which reversed a lower Court’s Order and ultimately denied Defendant-Seller’s claim for Summary Judgment to terminate a Contract and retain the Plaintiff-Purchaser’s Downpayment for failure to close title under the terms of a Time Being of the Essence (“TOE”) Letter.

This week we wanted to update you on new legislation that was signed into law last week by Governor Hochul which will significantly impact how Sellers can comply with the requirements of RPP Article 14 (Property Condition Disclosure in the Sale of Residential Real Property (“RPDA”).

As part of our ongoing effort to keep you informed on new legislation that could have an impact on your clients, this week we bring your attention to §§ 103-15 (Periodic observation of building parapets) of Local Law 126 of 2021 which requires annual inspections of all parapets by “a person competent to inspect parapets”.

This week we wanted to bring your attention to an interesting decision out of the First Department that interpreted RPAPL Section 2001 (“Actions to enforce certain covenants restricting use of land…”) in the context of an action commenced by a Condominium Board to require a Unit Owner to remove a structure that was constructed in a rear yard of the complex.

This week we wanted to draw your attention to an interesting case decided in the Broome County Surrogates Court wherein the Court analyzed whether an Executor could utilize Estate assets to pay the existing mortgage on a parcel of Real Property that was left to the decedent’s minor children by way of a Specific Devise under the Will.

At Home, we are always on the lookout for newly passed legislation that you might find useful in representing your clients. You may recall that earlier this year, New York City adopted Local Law 18, also known as the Short-Term Rental Registration Law, which requires short-term rental hosts to register their properties with the Mayor’s Office of Special Enforcement (OSE), and prohibits booking service platforms (such as Airbnb, VRBO, Booking.com, and others) from processing transactions for unregistered short-term rentals.

This week we wanted to bring your attention to an interesting decision out of the Second Department wherein the Appellate Court, in analyzing the RPAPL § 1304 notice requirements for a residential mortgage foreclosure action, reversed a lower Court’s ruling and granted Summary Judgment to the Appellant/Home-Owners and dismissed the Respondent/Lender’s Complaint.

This week we wanted to bring to your attention an interesting decision out of the First Department which affirmed the lower Court’s Order directing that a Seller return a $12 million-dollar Downpayment due to Seller’s failure to deliver Estoppel Certificates that included all of the contractually agreed upon representations. 
The relevant facts of, as well as a link to, the case are set forth below.

We wanted to take this time to remind you of the upcoming deadline for certain property owners to complete and file their gas piping inspections in accordance with NYC Local Law 152 of 2016 (“LL 152”).

This week we wanted to direct your attention to and interesting decision out of the First Department which reversed a lower Court ruling and directed summary judgment in favor of a Developer-Plaintiff who sued for Specific Performance, Injunctive Relief and Attorneys fees to enforce contract terms requiring a Seller to deliver certain Air Rights as part of its contractual obligations.
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 informative case out of the Second Department that addressed Plaintiffs’ claims for Adverse Possession, Easement by Necessity and/or Easement by Prescription related to use of a shared driveway. In denying all of the Plaintiffs’ claims, the Court held that the Plaintiffs simply failed to meet the threshold requirements necessary to support any of their proposed causes of action.
The relevant facts of, and a link to, the case is set forth below.

This week we wanted to bring your attention to a very interesting case decided by Justice Debra A. Martin in the Supreme Court, Monroe County. Justice Martin’s decision, in part, held that while an in-rem tax foreclosure sale failed to trigger a recorded Right of First Refusal (“ROFR”) to purchase the property in question, the Plaintiffs, as the acknowledged beneficiaries of the ROFR, were entitled to written notice of the foreclosure sale resulting in an Order setting aside the foreclosure deed and requiring that a new foreclosure sale be held in compliance with all notice requirements.

This week we wanted to draw your attention to an interesting New York County Supreme Court decision issued by Justice Verna L. Saunders, which, in part, granted a Defendant’s motion to vacate and cancel a Mechanic’s Lien pursuant to Lien Law § 19(3) and discharged its posted Bond based on the fact that the Plaintiff failed to timely commence an action to foreclose on the Lien within one year of the lien filing date.
The relevant facts of, and a link to, the case are set forth below.

This week we wanted to highlight an interesting New York County Supreme Court decision issued by Justice Alexander M. Tisch, which analyzed, and ultimately dismissed, a Plaintiff’s claim against a Condo Board of Managers alleging that the Board exceeded its authority when it sold, by way of an easement, certain roof rights to the building.

Today we wanted to highlight an interesting New York County Supreme Court decision issued by Justice Paul A. Goetz, which interpreted certain provisions of a separation settlement agreement permitting defendant (Wife) to buy out decedent's share of the marital residence. The dispute in question arose when the Plaintiff (the Executor of the deceased husband’s Estate) brought an action for breach of contract to recover fifty (50%) of the net sale proceeds after the Defendant subsequently sold the marital residence which home had been awarded to her in the divorce action subject to certain conditions. The Court found in favor of the Plaintiff and 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 very interesting Warren County Supreme Court decision issued by Justice Martin D. Auffredou which, in part, held that a party’s apparent use of a single-family dwelling for short-term rentals violated a Restrictive Covenant in the Deed that limited use only for “single family residential purposes.”.
The relevant facts of, and a link to, the case are set forth below.

This week we wanted to bring your attention to an interesting decision out of the 1^st Department which focused on the elements required to establish a Prescriptive Easement.
The relevant facts of, and a link to, the case are set forth below.

This week we once again wish to highlight another recent decision where the Court was forced to sort through allegations of fraud, forgery and adverse possession to render its decision to Quiet Title to a Kings County property.

This week we wanted to bring your attention to an Appellate Division decision out of the Third Department which held, in part, that mowing a lawn, together with constructing and maintaining a driveway, were sufficient evidence to support a claim for Adverse Possession of a disputed strip of land.
The relevant facts of, and a link to, the case are set forth below: