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.