Today we wanted to bring to your attention to an interesting decision out of the Appellate Division, 2^nd Department which affirmed a Supreme Court Order granting a Plaintiff’s (Foreclosing Lender) for a judgment of default and directed the retention of the Defendant’s (Successful Bidder) down payment for failure to close in accordance with the Terms of Sale.
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 out of the Appellate Division, 2^nd Department, which vacated a lower Court’s Order granting Plaintiff/Lender a Judgment of Foreclosure and Sale on a mortgage foreclosure proceeding.  The Court based its decision, in part, on the fact that the “affidavit of the plaintiff's servicing agent, submitted for the purpose of establishing the amount due and owing under the subject mortgage loan, constituted inadmissible hearsay and lacked probative value.”  
The relevant facts of, as well as a link to, the case are set forth below.

This week we wanted to update you on significant changes being implemented to the Title Insurance Rate Service Association (TIRSA)  Manual which will take effect on October 1, 2024 (collectively the “7^th Revision to the TIRSA Manual”).

This week we wanted to bring to your attention an interesting decision out of the Appellate Division, 3^rd Department, which upheld a lower court’s ruling that, in part, dismissed a Plaintiff’s Complaint seeking a Declaratory Judgment that the Defendants’ installation of a driveway had violated a Restrictive Declaration contained in their Subdivision Covenants & Restrictions agreement.  The relevant facts of, as well as a link to, the case are set forth below.

This week we wanted to address a question that has come up from time to time - Does a STAR exemption remain on the property if an approved STAR applicant dies after the Taxable Status Date? (NOTE: for STAR Abatement purposes the Taxable Status Date is March 1 of each calendar year).

This week we wanted to alert you to the fact that the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) is planning on both extending the recording time for Mortgagees to record their security documents as well as modifying their procedures to request Payoff Letters for the “Partial Claim Mortgages.”   If you are not familiar with a “Partial Claim Mortgage, please note that t he Federal Housing Administration (FHA), as part of HUD, offers loan modification programs for FHA-insured loans (FHA Loan) to homeowners facing financial hardships by authorizing the deferral of some or all defaulted amounts.  These deferred amounts may be set aside for future payoff, resulting in a modification to the loan.  As part of the modification process, the deferred amounts are assigned to HUD and a second mortgage is recorded to secure the additional obligation.  The mortgage in favor of HUD is referred to as a “Partial Claim Mortgage.”

This week we wanted to bring to your attention an interesting decision out of the Second Department which upheld a lower court’s Order appointing the Executor of a deceased husband’s (the “Plaintiff”) estate as the receiver of certain property to transfer title because the wife (the “Defendant”) failed to cooperate in effectuating the transfer of title to the property, as required by the judgment of divorce.
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.

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.

This week we wanted to bring to your attention an interesting decision from the Appellate Division, Second Department which reversed a Lower Court’s Order and granted Plaintiff-Purchaser’s motion for summary judgment directing the return of purchaser’s downpayment upon a theory of breach of contract based on the fact that Defendant-Seller was unable to timely clear of record a recorded Deed that clouded seller’s claim to exclusive fee title. 
The relevant facts of, as well as a link to, the case are set forth below.

Continuing Legal Education Seminar (CLE)

When: May 21st,2025
Time: 11:00am-12:00pm via ZOOM
Topic: Understanding Title Insurance and Underwriting for Condominiums

This webinar will explore common issues related to condominiums that can impact title policies, and provide key insights on what to watch for in order to better protect your client.

This week we wanted to draw your attention to an interesting decision out of the Appellate Division, Second Department, which affirmed a Lower Court’s Order and imposed an Equitable Mortgage upon Real Property notwithstanding that the recorded mortgage failed to include a Legal Description of the mortgaged property and the last deed of record included a defective legal description. 
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 reversed a lower court’s order that had granted Summary Judgment to a Mortgagee in a foreclosure action based, in part, on the fact that the deed transferring mortgaged Premises was executed after the Grantor’s date of death. 
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 a decision out of the Appellate Division, Second Department which analyzed the requirements of, and differences between, Appurtenant Easements and Prescriptive Easements. 
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 new legislation signed by Governor Hochul that has amended Section 6 of the Tax Law as to how NYS Tax Warrants will be indexed and related documents will be indexed going forward as of July 1, 2025 (the “Effective Date”). 

In case you missed the recent article in the N.Y. Real Property Law Journal (“NYRPLJ”) discussing the Practical Location Doctrine (see Actions Speak Louder Than Deeds: How a Neighbor’s Silence Rewrote Property Lines (NYRPLJ 2025, Vol. 53, No 1, pages 4-7)), we wanted to take this opportunity to alert you to this interesting option to potentially settle boundary line disputes between neighboring property owners.  The Practical Location Doctrine differs from a claim for Adverse Possession in that a party seeking to acquire title to disputed land need only satisfy the two (2) following elements to succeed in their claim:

This week we wanted to draw your attention to an interesting decision out of the Appellate Division, Second Department, which, in analyzing the Doctrine of Ademption as it related to a Specific Bequest of Real Property in a Will, affirmed a Lower Court’s Order awarding Summary Judgment to a petitioner’s claim and enforced the Specific Bequest despite the decedent not owning a fee interest in the disputed property at the time of her death.
 The relevant facts of, as well as a link to, the case are set forth below. 

We are writing this week to remind you that, effective July 1, 2025, the NYS Department of State Licensing Services Division will require the use of a Revised Property Condition Disclosure Statement (“PCDS”) to satisfy a Seller’s disclosure requirements in accordance with Article 14 of the Real Property Law. The new PCDS form adds instructions on where to find more information on septic system operation and maintenance on the Department of Health website. 

There has been another significant development in the ongoing litigation surrounding the reporting obligations for filing Beneficial Ownership Information (“BOI”) for both domestic and foreign reporting companies required under the Corporate Transparency Act: 31 U.S.C. 5336 (“CTA”).   Given the February 18, 2025, decision by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas in Smith, et al. v. U.S. Department of the Treasury, et al., 6:24-cv-00336 (E.D. Tex.), beneficial ownership information (BOI) reporting requirements under the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) are once again back in effect.  In an effort to give reporting companies reasonable time to comply with the latest Court Order, and complete their BOI filings, the Department of the Treasury (“FinCEN”) is generally extending the deadline 30 calendar days from February 19, 2025, for most companies.  Therefore, absent further Court Order(s) or extensions from FinCEN, BOI filings must be completed on or before March 21, 2025.

Below is a link to the FinCEN website where you can both obtain up to date information on the CTA and also complete your BOI filings.

https://www.fincen.gov/boi

This week we wanted to draw your attention to an interesting decision out of the Appellate Division, Second Department, which overturned a Lower Court’s Order and clarified that an allegation that a legally married couple were “living separate lives” was insufficient to sever a Tenancy by the Entirety ownership of Real Property. 
The relevant facts of, as well as a link to, the case are set forth below.