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. 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:

Today we wanted to bring your attention to a Second Department decision wherein the Court affirmed a lower Court’s decision to dismiss a Plaintiff motion for an Injunction seeking to enforce a Restrictive Declaration recorded solely against a neighbor’s property. The decision, in part, turned on the fact that the Plaintiff’s property was not adversely affected by the violation of the Restrictive Declaration and not whether the Defendant actually violated the recorded Restrictive Declaration.
The relevant facts of, as well as a link to, the case are set forth below.

This week we wanted to direct your attention to an interesting case and decision out of the Second Department which reinforced the importance of properly documenting compliance with the notice requirements set forth under RPAPL Section 1304 when commencing a foreclosure action. In denying a Plaintiff’s/Mortgagee’s motion for Summary judgment, the Court identified specific failures in the Plaintiff’s evidentiary submissions which derailed its efforts to foreclose on the mortgage notwithstanding the fact that Plaintiff might actually have followed its standard office mailing procedures.

This week we wanted to direct your attention to an interesting case and decision out of the Second Department which reinforced the importance of properly documenting compliance with the notice requirements set forth under RPAPL Section 1304 when commencing a foreclosure action. In denying a Plaintiff’s/Mortgagee’s motion for Summary judgment, the Court identified specific failures in the Plaintiff’s evidentiary submissions which derailed its efforts to foreclose on the mortgage notwithstanding the fact that Plaintiff might actually have followed its standard office mailing procedures.

This week we wanted to bring your attention to a recent Appellate Court decision out of the 2^nd Department that analyzed whether a landowner/Plaintiff, whose land was taken by the State of New York by way of a condemnation proceeding, had an “absolute” right of access for the purposes of ingress and egress over and through the condemned parcel. Based the specific facts of the case and the Order on appeal, the Court reasoned that the while the landowner/Plaintiff was entitled to a right of access to a public roadway, such right was not “absolute” and could be restricted in accordance with all codified laws.

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 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.

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 bring your attention to an Appellate Court decision out of the 2^nd Department which reversed a lower Court’s Order and ultimately denied Defendant-Seller’s claim for Summary Judgment to terminate a Contract and retain the Plaintiff-Purchaser’s Downpayment for failure to close title under the terms of a Time Being of the Essence (“TOE”) Letter.

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”).

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”.

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 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.

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 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.

We wanted to take this time to 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 and interesting decision out of the First Department which reversed a lower Court ruling and directed summary judgment in favor of a Developer-Plaintiff who sued for Specific Performance, Injunctive Relief and Attorneys fees to enforce contract terms requiring a Seller to deliver certain Air Rights as part of its contractual obligations.
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 informative case out of the Second Department that addressed Plaintiffs’ claims for Adverse Possession, Easement by Necessity and/or Easement by Prescription related to use of a shared driveway. In denying all of the Plaintiffs’ claims, the Court held that the Plaintiffs simply failed to meet the threshold requirements necessary to support any of their proposed causes of action.
The relevant facts of, and a link to, the case is set forth below.