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)

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 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 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 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 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.

Today we wanted to direct your attention to a very interesting case out of the Appellate Division, 2nd Department which involved the analysis of the effects of a fraudulent executed Power of Attorney and Deed on the enforceability of a mortgage. The relevant facts of the case and a link to the Appellate Court decision are described below.

This week we wanted to direct your attention to an interesting case and decision out of the Second Department which reinforced the importance of properly documenting compliance with the notice requirements set forth under RPAPL Section 1304 when commencing a foreclosure action. In denying a Plaintiff’s/Mortgagee’s motion for Summary judgment, the Court identified specific failures in the Plaintiff’s evidentiary submissions which derailed its efforts to foreclose on the mortgage notwithstanding the fact that Plaintiff might actually have followed its standard office mailing procedures.

Starting today, we will be sending out a weekly email entitled “Title Tuesday” designed to keep you informed on developing title issues, court cases, industry tips or updates on available policy products.

Here is the First one of this series (let us know what you think; your feedback matters!):

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.

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.

Today's email is to tell you more about the "Market Value Rider" to the Owner's Policy. This rider increases the coverage for your client up to the fair market value at the time of loss. As an example, if you paid $750,000.00 for a property 5 years ago and the fair market value is now $1,000,000.00 you would only be allowed to file a claim for a maximum amount of $750,000.00 , unless you purchased this rider (then you can file the claim for $1,000,000.00). With real estate prices continuing to increase, this rider provides a high amount of coverage to your client at a low cost.

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.

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.

How many times recently have you left the closing table worrying about whether that Wire Transfer for your payoff will actually be received by the Bank before you get back to the office? As Wire Transfers become more and more prevalent in our real estate transactional world, the opportunity for fraud and misappropriation of funds increases exponentially.

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.

Supplementing our 01/03/2023, 01/17/2023 and 3/14/2023 Title Tuesday updates regarding the legislation that is set to change the adjusted allowances and tax rates used to calculate the Peconic Bay Community Preservation Fund Tax (CPF) in certain towns effective as of April 1, 2023, you will recall that the increased tax rates will not apply to transactions where the Contract of Sale was executed prior to April 1, 2023.

This week we wanted to highlight a recent First Department decision that held, in part, that a Fee Owner’s Policy did not provide coverage for a claim related to an unrecorded Deed in favor of an occupant in possession where the Insured Owner had prior knowledge tenants were placed in the Premises and rents were being collected.

Supplementing our 01/03/2023 and 01/17/2023 Title Tuesday updates regarding the legislation that was set to change the adjusted allowances and tax rates used to calculate the Peconic Bay Community Preservation Fund Tax (CPF) in certain towns effective as of April 1, 2023, we have now been advised by the Suffolk County Clerk that the increased tax rates will not apply to transactions where the Contract of Sale was executed prior to April 1, 2023.

While there is much attention being paid to "RON" by the industry we want to make you aware of another way to close, via remotely using the application "Zoom".
The following is from First American regarding the use of "Zoom":

This week we wanted to bring your attention to a recent Supreme Court case out of New York County which highlights, in part, the importance of drafting Contract provisions that clearly define the Seller’s obligations with respect to crucial elements of the deal such as obtaining a Final Certificate of Occupancy or the existence of leaks into or emanating from the premises. Justice Ramseur’s decision awarded the Defendant (Seller) the retention of the disputed Contract Downpayment together with Legal Fees to be determined at a subsequent inquest hearing. The relevant facts of and a link to the case are set forth below.

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:

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 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 direct your attention to an interesting case and decision out of the Second Department which reinforced the importance of properly documenting compliance with the notice requirements set forth under RPAPL Section 1304 when commencing a foreclosure action. In denying a Plaintiff’s/Mortgagee’s motion for Summary judgment, the Court identified specific failures in the Plaintiff’s evidentiary submissions which derailed its efforts to foreclose on the mortgage notwithstanding the fact that Plaintiff might actually have followed its standard office mailing procedures.

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 recent Appellate Court decision out of the 2^nd Department that analyzed whether a landowner/Plaintiff, whose land was taken by the State of New York by way of a condemnation proceeding, had an “absolute” right of access for the purposes of ingress and egress over and through the condemned parcel. Based the specific facts of the case and the Order on appeal, the Court reasoned that the while the landowner/Plaintiff was entitled to a right of access to a public roadway, such right was not “absolute” and could be restricted in accordance with all codified laws.

Can a Lis Pendens be used to secure repayment of a loan purportedly given to purchase real property?? That is one of the questions that was addressed in a very interesting Nassau County Supreme Court case and the answer, according to Justice Leonard D. Steinman, is - NO! Below is a summary of the relevant facts of the case and a link to the decision and order:

This week we wanted to direct your attention to a recent First Department decision which held that an unrecorded discharge of mortgage was insufficient to vacate an Order of Foreclosure.  The relevant facts of and a link to the case are set forth below.

This week we wanted to highlight an interesting decision out of the Second Department which held that that a judgment creditor could not benefit from the from the protection of N.Y. Prop. Law § 290 et. seq.(New York’s Recording Statute). A summary of the relevant facts as well as a link to the case are 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.

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.

It has come to our attention that there have been several recent instances of vandalism to, and/or straight-out thefts from, overnight courier drop boxes throughout the metropolitan area. While thankfully this has not directly impacted any of Home Abstract Corp.’s payoff deliveries, these events have resulted in payoff checks being diverted so that the intended recipient does not receive the payoff funds.

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.

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.

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 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 draw your attention to a recent First Department decision that analyzed, in part, whether a contractor was entitled to file a Mechanic’s Lien in conjunction with its efforts to recover unpaid monies due and owing for the installation of scaffolding and a sidewalk shed on a construction project.

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.

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”.

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 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 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 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.

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”).

This week we wanted to bring your attention to an interesting case which determined that additional professional and legal fees were properly chargeable to a licensor where a prior Access License Agreement, issued in accordance with Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (“RPAPL”) Section 881 (“Access to adjoining property to make improvements or repairs”), had to be further extended and modified. The decision, in part, turned on the specific language set forth in the agreement as to the “reasonableness” of circumstances which necessitated the additional Professional Fees. The relevant facts and a link to the case are set forth below.

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. 

Here at Home, we continue to do our best to keep you apprised of meaningful legislation and deadlines that may affect you and your clients in the real estate industry. This week we wanted to remind you about the upcoming deadline under 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(unless required earlier as discussed below).

We wanted to take this time to again 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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

By now we are certain that you are aware of the increased risk associated with fraudulent deed transfer schemes being perpetrated across the country by scammers looking to take advantage of unsuspecting property owners. The costs in terms of legal fees, time, stress, lost sale opportunities and aggravation can be immeasurable if you or your clients become the unfortunate victims of one of these scams.

It’s not a rumor and you may have already heard, but as we start 2024, we are very excited to officially let you know that Home Abstract Corp. is now offering comprehensive title services in the State of New Jersey!

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 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 take this opportunity to remind you that the NYC Department of Housing Preservation Development (HPD) has recently increased certain Civil penalties for various Violations.

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.

Today we wanted to bring your attention to an interesting decision out of the Appellate Division, 2nd Department which held, in part, that a subsequent Purchaser for value, as well as the Purchaser’s Mortgage Lender, acquired their respective interests subject to a prior judgment lien; the amount of which had been mis-indexed in the County Clerk’s office. The relevant facts of Myrtle 684, LLC v Tauber; 2020 NY Slip Op 07901 [189 AD3d 1431], along with 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 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.

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.

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 opportunity to remind you to remain vigilant and continue to be on guard against the ever-increasing attempts of unscrupulous individuals to commit fraudulent land sales. These scams can involve the sale of a house or other types of real property, but often focus on the sale of a vacant lot that is owned free of encumbrances and liens. The “scammer” typically has done online research and is familiar not only with the property itself but with real estate transactions in general. The “Seller” therefore is usually able to discuss the proposed transaction with a high degree of accuracy.

This week we wanted to take the opportunity to revisit the effect of former Governor Cuomo’s Executive Orders which were issued in response to the Covid-19 outbreak, as they relate to the extension of deadlines and tolling periods of certain types of Liens.

With the proliferation of cases involving fraudulent Deed transfers in the news these days, we wanted to bring your attention to a 2nd Department case where a defrauded Plaintiff was successful in having such a Deed set aside by Court Order. The relevant facts and a link to the case are set forth below but, from a strategic standpoint, it is important to note that the Plaintiff’s Complaint included a Cause of Action to Quiet Title which is governed by a ten (10) year Statute of Limitations as opposed to just a fraud claim which would have been subject to a six (6) year Statute of Limitations.

This week we wanted to take a minute to remind you that there has been a notable surge in fraudulent land sales attempts nationwide, encompassing various types of properties. Predominantly, these schemes target the sale of unencumbered vacant land. Perpetrators typically conduct extensive online research, demonstrating a comprehensive understanding not only of the specific property but also of real estate transactions in general. Consequently, we are noticing that the fraudulent seller can engage in transaction discussions with a high level of precision.

As we are fast approaching the end of 2022, we wanted to remind you of a significant piece of legislation that became effective earlier this year and amended how judgment interest is calculated on Money Judgments in certain circumstances. Back on December 31, 2021, Governor Hochul signed into law Chapter 831 of the Laws of 2021 amending Sections of the CPLR to reduce the interest rate on money judgments against natural persons involving “consumer debt” (as defined in CPLR Section 5004(b)) from 9% to 2% per annum.

This week we wanted to take the opportunity to remind you that the Corporate Transparency Act (“CTA”) will go into effect on January 1, 2024. The CTA requires both new and existing companies covered by the law to report “beneficial ownership” as described herein. The CTA’s new reporting requirement for beneficial ownership information (BOI) refers to identifying information about certain individuals directly or indirectly owning or controlling a corporate entity.

As we approach the end of the year, we wanted to take this opportunity to remind you that Local Law 69 of 2017 requires Owners of Multiple Dwelling Residential Properties to file a Bedbug Report (“the Report”) detailing bedbug infestations and treatments in residential apartment buildings. The Report must be filed each year between December 1 and December 31, reporting on data for the previous year from November 1 through October 31.

This week we wanted to update you about a recent NYC Department of Buildings (DOB) decision to issue new boiler violations for owner’s failure to correct alleged defects that were disclosed in annual inspections for the years 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021 and/or 2022.

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.

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.

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.

RPL § 244 – When does Title to Property actually transfer from Grantor to Grantee?
Today we wanted to focus your attention on the importance of promptly recording your Clients’ Deed to ensure that the Fee Title to their property is unequivocally transferred as they intended. We start by looking at NY RPL § 244 which states that “[A] grant takes effect, so as to vest the estate or interest intended to be conveyed, only from its delivery; and all the rules of law, now in force, in respect to the delivery of deeds, apply to grants hereafter executed.”

Today we wanted to bring your attention to a Second Department decision wherein the Court affirmed a lower Court’s decision to dismiss a Plaintiff motion for an Injunction seeking to enforce a Restrictive Declaration recorded solely against a neighbor’s property. The decision, in part, turned on the fact that the Plaintiff’s property was not adversely affected by the violation of the Restrictive Declaration and not whether the Defendant actually violated the recorded Restrictive Declaration.
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 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.

As we approach the end of the year, we wanted 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”).You can review LL 152 using the following link:ll152of2016.pdf (nyc.gov). No later than December 31, 2022, all buildings (except for one- and two-family homes, and other buildings classified in Occupancy Group R-3), in Community Districts 4,6,8,9, and 16 in all five (5) boroughs must complete a gas piping system inspection of their property to be conducted by a Licensed Master Plumber (LMP), or a qualified individual working for an LMP.

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. 

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.

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 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

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 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 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 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.”

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.”