This week we wanted to take the opportunity to remind you that the Corporate Transparency Act (“CTA”) will go into effect on January 1, 2024. The CTA requires both new and existing companies covered by the law to report “beneficial ownership” as described herein. The CTA’s new reporting requirement for beneficial ownership information (BOI) refers to identifying information about certain individuals directly or indirectly owning or controlling a corporate entity.

This week we wanted to take a minute to remind you that there has been a notable surge in fraudulent land sales attempts nationwide, encompassing various types of properties. Predominantly, these schemes target the sale of unencumbered vacant land. Perpetrators typically conduct extensive online research, demonstrating a comprehensive understanding not only of the specific property but also of real estate transactions in general. Consequently, we are noticing that the fraudulent seller can engage in transaction discussions with a high level of precision.

With the proliferation of cases involving fraudulent Deed transfers in the news these days, we wanted to bring your attention to a 2nd Department case where a defrauded Plaintiff was successful in having such a Deed set aside by Court Order. The relevant facts and a link to the case are set forth below but, from a strategic standpoint, it is important to note that the Plaintiff’s Complaint included a Cause of Action to Quiet Title which is governed by a ten (10) year Statute of Limitations as opposed to just a fraud claim which would have been subject to a six (6) year Statute of Limitations.

As we approach the end of the year, we wanted to take this opportunity to remind you that Local Law 69 of 2017 requires Owners of Multiple Dwelling Residential Properties to file a Bedbug Report (“the Report”) detailing bedbug infestations and treatments in residential apartment buildings. The Report must be filed each year between December 1 and December 31, reporting on data for the previous year from November 1 through October 31.

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.

This week we wanted to update you about a recent NYC Department of Buildings (DOB) decision to issue new boiler violations for owner’s failure to correct alleged defects that were disclosed in annual inspections for the years 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021 and/or 2022.

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”).

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”.

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:

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.

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.

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).

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:

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”).

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.

This week we wanted to take this opportunity to remind you that the NYC Department of Housing Preservation Development (HPD) has recently increased certain Civil penalties for various Violations.

In our ongoing efforts to keep you updated on relevant legislation that may affect you and your clients, this week we wanted to remind you that, pursuant to Article 323 of Title 28 of the NYC Administrative Code and 1 RCNY §103-13 of the NYC Department of Buildings (“DOB”) Rules and Regulations, owners of parking structures in certain Community Districts in all five (5) boroughs are required to have a one-time initial observation of their parking structure performed by, or under the direct supervision of, a qualified parking structure inspector (“QPSI”) and report the findings to DOB no later than August 1, 2024.

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.