This week we wanted to alert you to an interesting case decided by the Appellate Division, Second Department, which affirmed a Lower Court’s Order holding, in part, that a Condominium Board’s attempt to amend a House Rule restricting certain dogs from being on the property was not protected from Court review under the Business Judgment Rule.  The Court further held that the proposed House Rule was null and void for failure to obtain approval from Unit Owners holding at least 66 2/3% of the common interests as required by the Condominium’s By-Laws, which was the threshold needed to amend the Condominium Declaration.
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. 

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. 

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. 

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 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