This week we wanted to remind you that Local Law 97 (LL 97-2019) establishing Carbon emission limits for certain properties went into effect on January 1, 2024. The following types of properties are deemed “Covered Buildings”, and will be regulated by LL 97-2019:

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 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:

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 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 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.

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 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:

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 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.

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.

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.

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 bring to your attention an interesting case out of the 2^nd Department which addressed the question whether an Estate could maintain an action against the decedent’s partners and a Notary Public who executed an obviously fraudulent deed on theories of liability including fraudulent concealment and unjust enrichment. The relevant facts of, as well as a link to, the case are set forth below.

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 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 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 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.