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).

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:

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”).

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.

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.

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 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 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.

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.

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:

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.

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 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 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.

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.

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 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. 

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.