This week we wanted to draw your attention to a recent decision out of the Appellate Division, Second Department which affirmed a lower court’s order and held that “[i]n the absence of a stay of the sale or an outstanding notice of pendency, title of the purchaser in good faith and for value "is . . . insulate[d] . . . from the effects of an appellate reversal" of an Order granting a Judgment of Foreclosure and Sale (citations omitted). 
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 vacated a deed of record and confirmed the fact that a Power of Attorney (POA) that was validly executed under the Statute in effect at the time the POA was executed, remained valid to transfer Real Property notwithstanding that the executed POA would not have been valid if executed subsequent to changes to the Statute. 
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 the Home Team wanted to draw your attention to an interesting case out of the Appellate Division, Second Department, which Appellate Order reversed a Lower Court’s decision and held, in part, that, absent a showing of fraud, collusion, mistake or misconduct by the foreclosing party, a property owner’s right to redeem a mortgage in a foreclosure proceeding had expired immediately upon the foreclosure 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, Fourth Department, which affirmed a Lower Court’s Order confirming the validity of a Deed that transferred title from the Executor of an Estate to a bona fide purchaser for value despite the fact that the Decedent’s Will included a specific bequest of the real property.  Both the Lower Court’s and Appellate Court’s decisions were based, in part, on several texts and emails between the parties, as well as the parties’ attorneys, acknowledging and agreeing to the terms of sale by the Executor. 
The relevant facts of, as well as a link to, the case are set forth below.

We are often asked for clarification as to whether violations issued by the Environmental Control Board (ECB) have to be paid and/or cleared of record to allow a Seller to transfer title to a Purchaser free and clear of such ECB Violations.  The answer is not always clear-cut and will depend on how the ECB Violation was issued and/or docketed.   

This week we wanted to bring your attention to an interesting decision out of the Appellate Division, Second Department, which, in affirming a lower Court’s decisions, held in part, that a Title Company is not liable for aiding and abetting an alleged fraudulent transaction absent conclusive proof showing that Title Company had actual knowledge of the fraud and offered substantial assistance in effectuating the fraudulent transaction. 
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 Appellate Division, Second Department, which, in modifying a Lower’s Court’s order, confirmed that the owner of a property that is burdened by an Easement for Ingress and Egress in favor of a neighboring property may, in fact “restrict” the applicable easement area by installing gates and/or fences (collectively “Easement Encroachments”), provided such Easement Encroachments do not substantially impair the neighbor’s actual right of passage via the Easement. 
The relevant facts of, as well as a link to, the case are set forth below.

This week we wanted to remind you that Retaining Wall Inspection Reports are due to be filed with the NYC Department of Buildings (“DOB”) for all properties located in the New York County (Manhattan) with 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 on or before December 31, 2025 (the “Inspection Filing Deadline”).

Supplementing our 10/1/2024 Title Tuesday email regarding the filing requirements mandated under NYC Local Law 97 of 2019 (“LL 97”), which became effective on November 15, 2019, and sets limits on the greenhouse gas emissions starting in 2024 for certain “Covered Buildings”, please note that the New York City Department of Buildings (DOB) has now given property owners an option to extend the filing deadline for LL97 emission reports but only if a formal request for such extension is submitted to DOB before August 29, 2025.

This week we wanted to draw your attention to an interesting decision out of the Appellate Divisions, Third Department, that held, in relevant part, that an oral agreement between neighbors for the continued use and access by the Defendant of a water delivery system designed to primarily benefit the Plaintiff’s property violated the Statute of Frauds and was therefore unenforceable. 
The relevant facts of the attached case are set forth below.

This week we wanted to take a moment to share some exciting news with all of you. Last night, our very own Mark D’Addona was officially sworn in as President of the New York State Land Title Association (NYSLTA).  For those of you who might not be aware, NYSLTA is a professional trade organization that represents the land title industry in New York State. This includes title insurance companies, title agents, abstractors, attorneys, and others involved in the real estate and title insurance process.  NYSTLA works tirelessly to help develop and promote standards, ethics, and best practices for professionals in the title industry, to offer continuing education and training seminars to all real estate professionals, to monitor and recommend beneficial changes to proposed and existing laws and regulations affecting title insurance and real estate transactions in New York all with the aim of ensuring that homebuyers and other consumers receive fair and accurate information in real estate closings.  Additionally, NYSLTA routinely advocates, on behalf of the title industry as a whole, before the New York State Legislature, regulatory agencies (like the NY Department of Financial Services (“DFS”), and other governmental bodies to protect its interests. 

This week we wanted to alert you to a significant rule change implemented by the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) as to the new reporting requirements for certain covered real estate transactions.   The new rule is designed to combat and deter money laundering by increasing transparency in the U.S. residential real estate sector without limiting the reporting to certain targeted geographical areas. The rule change requires, on a nationwide basis, certain persons involved in real estate closings and settlements to report information to FinCEN about specified transfers of residential real estate that are a high risk for illicit finance.
The final rule will take effect on December 1, 2025 (the “Effective Date”) and will apply under the following circumstances:

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. 

Supplementing our August 6, 2024 Title Tuesday which discussed the lead testing and reporting requirements set forth in NYC Local Law 31 of 2020 (“LL 31”) and NYC Local Law 111 of 2023 (“LL 111”), we wanted to take this opportunity to remind you that the deadline to complete the XRF testing for all covered properties and to report results is due by August 9, 2025 (the “Effective Date”).   Please note that LL 31 requires all Residential Apartments in covered properties to be tested for lead utilizing an X-Ray Fluorescence (XRF) analyzer (unless an Apartment qualifies for a specific Exemption), and NYC Local Law 111 of 2023 (“LL 111”) supplements LL-31 and requires that all Common Areas of covered buildings be tested in similar fashion by the Effective Date.