As we approach the end of the year, we wanted 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”).You can review LL 152 using the following link:ll152of2016.pdf (nyc.gov). No later than December 31, 2022, all buildings (except for one- and two-family homes, and other buildings classified in Occupancy Group R-3), in Community Districts 4,6,8,9, and 16 in all five (5) boroughs must complete a gas piping system inspection of their property to be conducted by a Licensed Master Plumber (LMP), or a qualified individual working for an LMP.

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.

Today we wanted to direct your attention to a very interesting case out of the Appellate Division, 2nd Department which involved the analysis of the effects of a fraudulent executed Power of Attorney and Deed on the enforceability of a mortgage. The relevant facts of the case and a link to the Appellate Court decision are described 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 bring your attention to an Appellate Division, 2^nd Department, case which ultimately rejected a petitioner’s claim for a variance to locate his inground swimming pool wholly on his property but in violation of the Town of Islip’s Zoning Code set back requirements. The lower Court had initially granted the Petitioner’s application for a variance, but the Appellate Court overturned the lower court decision based on its review of the Town’s Zoning Board of Appeals (“ZBA”) analysis of the facts included in the variance application. A summary of those relevant facts, along with a link to the case, are set forth below.

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.

This week we wanted to bring your attention to a First Department case wherein the Appellate Division held that an Ex-Husband’s Judgment Creditor’s lien claim was subordinate to the Ex-Wife’s unrecorded equitable interest in a Condominium Unit that the couple had acquired during their marriage. The relevant facts of the case, as well as a link to the decision, are summarized below.

This week we wanted to bring your attention to an interesting decision out of the 1^st Department which focused on the elements required to establish a Prescriptive Easement.
The relevant facts of, and a link to, the case are set forth below.

This week we once again wish to highlight another recent decision where the Court was forced to sort through allegations of fraud, forgery and adverse possession to render its decision to Quiet Title to a Kings County property.

This week we wanted to bring your attention to an Appellate Division decision out of the Third Department which held, in part, that mowing a lawn, together with constructing and maintaining a driveway, were sufficient evidence to support a claim for Adverse Possession of a disputed strip of land.
The relevant facts of, and a link to, the case are set forth below:

This week we wanted to bring your attention to a recent Supreme Court case out of New York County which highlights, in part, the importance of drafting Contract provisions that clearly define the Seller’s obligations with respect to crucial elements of the deal such as obtaining a Final Certificate of Occupancy or the existence of leaks into or emanating from the premises. Justice Ramseur’s decision awarded the Defendant (Seller) the retention of the disputed Contract Downpayment together with Legal Fees to be determined at a subsequent inquest hearing. The relevant facts of and a link to the case are set forth below.

While there is much attention being paid to "RON" by the industry we want to make you aware of another way to close, via remotely using the application "Zoom".
The following is from First American regarding the use of "Zoom":

Supplementing our 01/03/2023, 01/17/2023 and 3/14/2023 Title Tuesday updates regarding the legislation that is set to change the adjusted allowances and tax rates used to calculate the Peconic Bay Community Preservation Fund Tax (CPF) in certain towns effective as of April 1, 2023, you will recall that the increased tax rates will not apply to transactions where the Contract of Sale was executed prior to April 1, 2023.

This week we wanted to highlight a recent First Department decision that held, in part, that a Fee Owner’s Policy did not provide coverage for a claim related to an unrecorded Deed in favor of an occupant in possession where the Insured Owner had prior knowledge tenants were placed in the Premises and rents were being collected.

Supplementing our 01/03/2023 and 01/17/2023 Title Tuesday updates regarding the legislation that was set to change the adjusted allowances and tax rates used to calculate the Peconic Bay Community Preservation Fund Tax (CPF) in certain towns effective as of April 1, 2023, we have now been advised by the Suffolk County Clerk that the increased tax rates will not apply to transactions where the Contract of Sale was executed prior to April 1, 2023.

How many times recently have you left the closing table worrying about whether that Wire Transfer for your payoff will actually be received by the Bank before you get back to the office? As Wire Transfers become more and more prevalent in our real estate transactional world, the opportunity for fraud and misappropriation of funds increases exponentially.

The new Short Form Power of Attorney has been in affect since June 13, 2021 (just over a year), we figured we would send this out as a quick refresher.

Please also note, that all existing powers that were valid under the laws at the time they were executed are grandfathered and will remain valid subject to any further guidance.

This week we wanted to draw your attention to an interesting New York County Supreme Court decision issued by Justice Verna L. Saunders, which, in part, granted a Defendant’s motion to vacate and cancel a Mechanic’s Lien pursuant to Lien Law § 19(3) and discharged its posted Bond based on the fact that the Plaintiff failed to timely commence an action to foreclose on the Lien within one year of the lien filing date.
The relevant facts of, and a link to, the case are set forth below.

This week we wanted to highlight an interesting New York County Supreme Court decision issued by Justice Alexander M. Tisch, which analyzed, and ultimately dismissed, a Plaintiff’s claim against a Condo Board of Managers alleging that the Board exceeded its authority when it sold, by way of an easement, certain roof rights to the building.