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”). 

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 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 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.

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 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.

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.

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 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 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.

Today we want to bring your attention to an interesting case decided by the Appellate Court, First Department which affirmed a Lower Court’s Order dismissing a Plaintiff/Lender’s Complaint against a Defendant/Title Company.  The Plaintiff’s Complaint, in part, sought Title Company’s defense and indemnification in a pending foreclosure action based on a Loan Policy issued in connection with an initial Mortgage; which Mortgage was thereafter assigned to a new Lender and consolidated with a new money mortgage to form a single, new lien on the property. 
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 from the Appellate Division, Second Department which reversed a Lower Court’s decision and remanded the case back to the Supreme Court to enter an amended Judgment in favor of defendant and declaring that the plaintiff's rights in and to the property are subject to the recorded easement for maintenance of the Williamsburg Bridge. 
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 Second Department in a case entitled Choudhari v. Choudhari, 220 AD3d 835 (2023) which affirmed and modified, in part, a Supreme Court Order declaring two (2) recorded deeds null and void based on the fact that the Power of Attorney used to effectuate the deed transfers did not expressly grant the Attorney in Fact authorization to “gift” the real property to himself or other parties.
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 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.

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

As we previously advised, the reporting requirements 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”) remain on hold pending appeals of multiple Federal lawsuits so, at the present time, no personal information regarding the members, managers, shareholder or principals of these entities needs to be filed with the US Treasury Department (“FinCEN”) until further notice.

In our ongoing efforts to bring you updates on important legislation that may affect your clients, we wanted to let you know of pending legislation, H.R.736 - Protect Small Businesses from Excessive Paperwork Act of 2025, which the House of Representatives recently passed by unanimous vote.  This Bill was sponsored by Rep. Zachary Nunn of Iowa and, if fully enacted into law, will effectively delay, for one year, any BOI reporting requirements only for entities formed prior to January 1, 2024, until January 1, 2026.  This proposed legislation, if enacted into law, will only become relevant if the pending appeals in the Federal cases are decided to lift or modify the current injunction that is in place which stays the CTA reporting requirements.  We have provided you with a link below so that you can track the progress of H.R. 736 as it winds its way through the legislative process.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/736/text/ih

Additionally, while we await final decision on the Federal appeals that will ultimately decide the constitutionality of the CTA reporting requirements, we can let you know that FinCEN has stated that if the BOI reporting requirements are reinstated by decision of the Appeals Court, FinCEN would allow at least 30 days for businesses to comply with such BOI requirements from the date of the Court Order.  Below is a link to the FinCEN website which includes regular updates on all pending litigation and alert notices related to the CTA.

https://www.fincen.gov/boi

This week we wanted to bring to your attention an interesting decision rendered in the Appellate Division, 2^nd Department which affirmed a lower Court’s Order dismissing a Plaintiff’s claim for partition and sale of marital property where a prior Judgment of Divorce, among other relief, had effectively resolved all claims for equitable distribution and property distribution between the parties. 
The relevant fact 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 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 issued by Justice Andrew Borrok in the Commercial Division of the Supreme Court, New York County, which held, in relevant part, that absent an Intercreditor Agreement to the contrary, a Mezzanine Lender had no standing to challenge the foreclosure proceeding brought by the Mortgagee holding the first mortgage on a property. 
The relevant facts of, as well as a link to, the case are set forth below.

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.”