Real Estate – Page 10 – New York Appellate Digest

LAW REGARDING SALE OF PROPERTY OWNED BY TENANTS BY THE ENTIRETY WHERE ONLY ONE SPOUSE SIGNS THE CONTRACT EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).

In an action involving two contracts for the sale of property owned by tenants by the entirety, one contract with plaintiff and one with defendant, the Second Department determined questions of fact precluded defendant’s motion for summary judgment. The court explained the law applicable to the sale of property owned by tenants by the entirety by only one of the spouses:

Where spouses own property as tenants by the entirety, a conveyance by one spouse, to which the other has not consented, cannot bind the entire fee or impair the nonconsenting spouse’s survivorship interest … . Thus, generally, where property is held by spouses as tenants by the entirety, an agreement of sale signed by only one spouse is ineffective to constitute an agreement to convey full title, unless it is shown, inter alia, that the nonsigning spouse had complete knowledge of and actively participated in the transaction, that he or she ratified the purchase option after the fact, or that the signing spouse was authorized in writing to act as the nonsigning spouse’s agent in the matter … . However, each spouse may sell, mortgage, or otherwise encumber his or her rights in the property, subject to the continuing rights of the other … . Carpenter v Crespo, 2018 NY Slip Op 03501, Second Dept 5-16-18

REAL ESTATE (LAW REGARDING SALE OF PROPERTY OWNED BY TENANTS BY THE ENTIRETY WHERE ONLY ONE SPOUSE SIGNS THE CONTRACT EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT))/TENANTS BY THE ENTIRETY (LAW REGARDING SALE OF PROPERTY OWNED BY TENANTS BY THE ENTIRETY WHERE ONLY ONE SPOUSE SIGNS THE CONTRACT EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT))

May 16, 2018

Fraud, Negligence, Real Estate

COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE SELLERS OF A CONDOMINIUM FOR FRAUDULENTLY CONCEALING MOLD AND WATER DAMAGE IN THE CONDOMINIUM AND COMMON AREAS, THE COMPLAINT ALSO STATED A MALPRACTICE CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE BUYERS’ ATTORNEY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the plaintiffs had stated causes of action against the sellers (the Lyubarskys) of a condominium for fraudulently concealing mold and water damage in the condominium and in the common areas. The complaint also alleged plaintiffs’ attorney committed malpractice in representing them in the purchase. The court explained the how the doctrine of caveat emptor (buyer beware) relates to the allegations in the complaint:

“New York adheres to the doctrine of caveat emptor and imposes no liability on a seller for failing to disclose information regarding the premises when the parties deal at arm’s length, unless there is some conduct on the part of the seller which constitutes active concealment”… . “If however, some conduct (i.e., more than mere silence) on the part of the seller rises to the level of active concealment, a seller may have a duty to disclose information concerning the property”… . “To maintain a cause of action to recover damages for active concealment, the plaintiff must show, in effect, that the seller or the seller’s agents thwarted the plaintiff’s efforts to fulfill his responsibilities fixed by the doctrine of caveat emptor” … .

Here, accepting the facts alleged in the complaint as true and according the plaintiff the benefit of every possible favorable inference… , the complaint sufficiently states a cause of action to recover damages for fraud on the theory that the Lyubarskys actively concealed defects throughout the common areas of the condominium building. The complaint alleges that the Lyubarskys took several steps to hide the existence of leaks and mold damage including, inter alia, claiming that they had lost the key to the storage area in the cellar which was assigned to the subject condominium, and removing and replacing damaged sheetrock from the cellar and the parking area. These allegations, if true, might have thwarted the plaintiff’s efforts to fulfill her responsibilities imposed by the doctrine of caveat emptor with respect to the common areas of the building … . Razdolskaya v Lyubarsky, 2018 NY Slip Op 02817, Second Dept 4-25-18

REAL ESTATE (COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE SELLERS OF A CONDOMINIUM FOR FRAUDULENTLY CONCEALING MOLD AND WATER DAMAGE IN THE CONDOMINIUM AND COMMON AREAS, THE COMPLAINT ALSO STATED A MALPRACTICE CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE BUYERS’ ATTORNEY (SECOND DEPT))/FRAUD (REAL ESTATE, COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE SELLERS OF A CONDOMINIUM FOR FRAUDULENTLY CONCEALING MOLD AND WATER DAMAGE IN THE CONDOMINIUM AND COMMON AREAS, THE COMPLAINT ALSO STATED A MALPRACTICE CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE BUYERS’ ATTORNEY (SECOND DEPT))/CAVEAT EMPTOR (REAL ESTATE, COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE SELLERS OF A CONDOMINIUM FOR FRAUDULENTLY CONCEALING MOLD AND WATER DAMAGE IN THE CONDOMINIUM AND COMMON AREAS, THE COMPLAINT ALSO STATED A MALPRACTICE CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE BUYERS’ ATTORNEY (SECOND DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE (ATTORNEYS, REAL ESTATE, COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE SELLERS OF A CONDOMINIUM FOR FRAUDULENTLY CONCEALING MOLD AND WATER DAMAGE IN THE CONDOMINIUM AND COMMON AREAS, THE COMPLAINT ALSO STATED A MALPRACTICE CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE BUYERS’ ATTORNEY (SECOND DEPT))/LEGAL MALPRACTICE (REAL ESTATE, COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE SELLERS OF A CONDOMINIUM FOR FRAUDULENTLY CONCEALING MOLD AND WATER DAMAGE IN THE CONDOMINIUM AND COMMON AREAS, THE COMPLAINT ALSO STATED A MALPRACTICE CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE BUYERS’ ATTORNEY (SECOND DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (REAL ESTATE, MALPRACTICE, COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE SELLERS OF A CONDOMINIUM FOR FRAUDULENTLY CONCEALING MOLD AND WATER DAMAGE IN THE CONDOMINIUM AND COMMON AREAS, THE COMPLAINT ALSO STATED A MALPRACTICE CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE BUYERS’ ATTORNEY (SECOND DEPT))

April 25, 2018

Civil Procedure, Contract Law, Evidence, Real Estate

CONTRACT WAS ENFORCEABLE DESPITE PARTIES’ EXPECTATION A MORE FORMAL CONTRACT WOULD BE EXECUTED LATER, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO CONFORM THE COMPLAINT TO THE PROOF AT TRIAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined an enforceable real estate purchase contract had been formed and plaintiff’s motion to conform the complaint to the proof at trial should have been granted. The court noted that the parties’ expectation that a more formal contract will be executed later is not really relevant:

Although Berger [defendant’s principal] testified that he expected that a final contract would be signed after it had been put in “proper form” by an attorney, “the existence of a binding contract is not dependent on the subjective intent of [the parties]” … . “In determining whether the parties entered into a contractual agreement and what were its terms, it is necessary to look, rather, to the objective manifestations of the intent of the parties as gathered by their expressed words and deeds” … . Notably, the … contract contains all of the essential terms of a contract for the sale of real property, designated the parties, and identified and described the subject matter of the contract . The contract was signed … , and all changes to the contract were initialed … . Moreover, the contract contained no provision indicating that an additional signed agreement would be necessary to create a binding agreement … and, even where the parties “anticipat[e] that a more formal contract will be executed later, the contract is enforceable if it embodies all the essential terms of the agreement” … . …

The Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiff’s motion to conform its complaint to the proof at trial (see CPLR 3025[c]). “[A]bsent prejudice, courts are free to permit amendment even after trial” … . “The burden of establishing prejudice is on the party opposing the amendment” … . “Prejudice, of course, is not found in the mere exposure of the defendant to greater liability. Instead, there must be some indication that the defendant has been hindered in the preparation of his case or has been prevented from taking some measure in support of his position” … . Here, in opposition to the plaintiff’s motion, the defendants failed to show that the amendment would hinder the preparation of their cases or prevent them from taking some measure in support of their positions at trial and, therefore, the plaintiff’s motion to conform its complaint to the proof should have been granted. Metropolitan Lofts of NY, LLC v Metroeb Realty 1, LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 02319, Second Dept 4-4-18

CONTRACT LAW CONTRACT WAS ENFORCEABLE DESPITE PARTIES’ EXPECTATION A MORE FORMAL CONTRACT WOULD BE EXECUTED LATER (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO CONFORM THE COMPLAINT TO THE PROOF AT TRIAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/COMPLAINT (CONFORM TO PROOF AT TRIAL, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO CONFORM THE COMPLAINT TO THE PROOF AT TRIAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CIVIL PROCEDURE, COMPLAINT, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO CONFORM THE COMPLAINT TO THE PROOF AT TRIAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/CONFORM TO PROOF AT TRIAL (CIVIL PROCEDURE, COMPLAINT, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO CONFORM THE COMPLAINT TO THE PROOF AT TRIAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

April 4, 2018

Real Estate

DOWNPAYMENT NOT FORFEITED BASED UPON THE BANK’S REVOCATION OF THE MORTGAGE COMMITMENT, NO SHOWING THE REVOCATION WAS DUE TO DEFENDANT PURCHASER’S BAD FAITH (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that defendant purchaser did not forfeit the downpayment under the real estate purchase agreement based upon the bank’s revocation of the commitment letter:

“When a mortgage commitment letter is revoked by the lender after the contingency period, in contrast to the failure to obtain a commitment letter in the first instance, the contractual provision relating to failure to obtain an initial commitment is inoperable, and the question becomes whether the revocation was attributable to any bad faith on the part of the purchaser” … . Thus, where a mortgage commitment is revoked in the absence of bad faith on the part of the purchaser, performance of the contract is excused and the purchaser avoids the “unenviable position of either having to proceed to closing [without financing], or to risk forfeiture of the down payment” … . Notably, the fact that a mortgage commitment was revoked based on new information supplied by the purchaser does not, by itself, establish that he or she acted in bad faith … . Here, plaintiff failed to establish as a matter of law that “the lender’s revocation of the mortgage commitment was attributable to bad faith on the part of [defendant]” … , rather than to defendant’s efforts to honor his duty of fair dealing to the bank by providing it with further information regarding the proposed transaction … . Md3 Holdings, LLC v Buerkle, 2018 NY Slip Op 01836, Fourth Dept 3-16-18

REAL ESTATE (DOWNPAYMENT NOT FORFEITED BASED UPON THE BANK’S REVOCATION OF THE MORTGAGE COMMITMENT, NO SHOWING THE REVOCATION WAS DUE TO DEFENDANT PURCHASER’S BAD FAITH (FOURTH DEPT))/MORTGAGES (REAL ESTATE, COMMITMENT LETTER, DOWNPAYMENT NOT FORFEITED BASED UPON THE BANK’S REVOCATION OF THE MORTGAGE COMMITMENT, NO SHOWING THE REVOCATION WAS DUE TO DEFENDANT PURCHASER’S BAD FAITH (FOURTH DEPT))/COMMITMENT LETTER (MORTGAGES, REAL ESTATE, DOWNPAYMENT NOT FORFEITED BASED UPON THE BANK’S REVOCATION OF THE MORTGAGE COMMITMENT, NO SHOWING THE REVOCATION WAS DUE TO DEFENDANT PURCHASER’S BAD FAITH (FOURTH DEPT))/DOWNPAYMENT (REAL ESTATE CONTRACT, COMITMENT LETTER, DOWNPAYMENT NOT FORFEITED BASED UPON THE BANK’S REVOCATION OF THE MORTGAGE COMMITMENT, NO SHOWING THE REVOCATION WAS DUE TO DEFENDANT PURCHASER’S BAD FAITH (FOURTH DEPT))

March 16, 2018

Contract Law, Real Estate

PLAINTIFF’S SILENCE COUPLED WITH GOING FORWARD TO ENTER THE LEASE CONSTITUTED ACCEPTANCE OF THE REAL ESTATE BROKER’S COUNTEROFFER FOR THE BROKERAGE FEE (SECOND DEPT).

The First Department determined plaintiff’s silence after defendant real estate broker’s counteroffer for the brokerage fee, coupled with plaintiff’s going ahead to enter the lease procured by the broker, constituted acceptance of the counteroffer:

…[T]he plaintiff established, prima facie, its entitlement to a judgment declaring that the brokerage commission due was five percent of the rent for the first five years of the lease agreement by submitting evidence that the defendant did not reject the counteroffer, but instead proceeded to have its client enter into the lease agreement. “While mere silence, when not misleading, cannot be construed as acceptance, a counteroffer may be accepted by conduct”… . The defendant’s conduct of moving forward with the lease agreement upon receiving the plaintiff’s counteroffer established that the objective manifestation of the parties’ intent was an agreement to the brokerage rate set forth in the counteroffer … . Gator Hillside Vil., LLC v Schuckman Realty, Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 01178, Second Dept 2-21-18

CONTRACT LAW (PLAINTIFF’S SILENCE COUPLED WITH GOING FORWARD TO ENTER THE LEASE CONSTITUTED ACCEPTANCE OF THE REAL ESTATE BROKER’S COUNTEROFFER FOR THE BROKERAGE FEE (SECOND DEPT))/COUNTEROFFER (CONTRACT LAW, REAL ESTATE, PLAINTIFF’S SILENCE COUPLED WITH GOING FORWARD TO ENTER THE LEASE CONSTITUTED ACCEPTANCE OF THE REAL ESTATE BROKER’S COUNTEROFFER FOR THE BROKERAGE FEE (SECOND DEPT))/REAL ESTATE (BROKERAGE FEE, CONTRACT LAW, PLAINTIFF’S SILENCE COUPLED WITH GOING FORWARD TO ENTER THE LEASE CONSTITUTED ACCEPTANCE OF THE REAL ESTATE BROKER’S COUNTEROFFER FOR THE BROKERAGE FEE (SECOND DEPT))/SILENCE (CONTRACT LAW, COUNTEROFFER, PLAINTIFF’S SILENCE COUPLED WITH GOING FORWARD TO ENTER THE LEASE CONSTITUTED ACCEPTANCE OF THE REAL ESTATE BROKER’S COUNTEROFFER FOR THE BROKERAGE FEE (SECOND DEPT))

February 21, 2018

Evidence, Real Estate

PLAINTIFF ACTED AS A REAL ESTATE BROKER FOR BOTH BUYER AND SELLER, DUAL AGENCY WAS NOT DISCLOSED, PLAINTIFF NOT ENTITLED TO COMMISSION, STATEMENT IN COMPLAINT THAT PLAINTIFF WAS A BROKER WAS A JUDICIAL ADMISSION, PRECLUDING ANY CLAIM PLAINTIFF WAS MERELY A FINDER (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined plaintiff Zaccaro was a real estate broker, not a finder, and was not entitled to a real estate commission because plaintiff acted as a broker for the buyer and the seller (impermissible dual agency without full disclosure):

Plaintiffs’ argument that Zaccaro was merely a finder instead of a real estate broker is unavailing. The amended complaint, which was verified by Zaccaro’s president, alleges that plaintiffs were [the buyer’s] real estate brokers. This statement constitutes a formal judicial admission …”.

Furthermore, a finder has no obligation to negotiate the real estate transaction in order to obtain its fee … . Here, the amended complaint indicates that plaintiffs were obligated to negotiate the sale of the premises. In particular, the amended complaint alleges that [the buyer] authorized plaintiffs “to act as the licensed real estate brokers … . …

Plaintiffs’ contention that the seller was not injured by Zaccaro’s dual agency is unavailing. Where, as here, the duty of undivided loyalty is breached, plaintiff broker forfeits its right to a commission, “regardless of whether damages were incurred” … . P. Zaccaro, Co., Inc. v DHA Capital, LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 00458, First Dept 1-25-18

REAL ESTATE (PLAINTIFF ACTED AS A REAL ESTATE BROKER FOR BOTH BUYER AND SELLER, DUAL AGENCY WAS NOT DISCLOSED, PLAINTIFF NOT ENTITLED TO COMMISSION, STATEMENT IN COMPLAINT THAT PLAINTIFF WAS A BROKER WAS A JUDICIAL ADMISSION, PRECLUDING ANY CLAIM PLAINTIFF WAS MERELY A FINDER (FIRST DEPT))/BROKERS, REAL ESTATE (PLAINTIFF ACTED AS A REAL ESTATE BROKER FOR BOTH BUYER AND SELLER, DUAL AGENCY WAS NOT DISCLOSED, PLAINTIFF NOT ENTITLED TO COMMISSION, STATEMENT IN COMPLAINT THAT PLAINTIFF WAS A BROKER WAS A JUDICIAL ADMISSION, PRECLUDING ANY CLAIM PLAINTIFF WAS MERELY A FINDER (FIRST DEPT))/DUAL AGENCY (REAL ESTATE, PLAINTIFF ACTED AS A REAL ESTATE BROKER FOR BOTH BUYER AND SELLER, DUAL AGENCY WAS NOT DISCLOSED, PLAINTIFF NOT ENTITLED TO COMMISSION, STATEMENT IN COMPLAINT THAT PLAINTIFF WAS A BROKER WAS A JUDICIAL ADMISSION, PRECLUDING ANY CLAIM PLAINTIFF WAS MERELY A FINDER (FIRST DEPT))/FINDER (REAL ESTATE, (PLAINTIFF ACTED AS A REAL ESTATE BROKER FOR BOTH BUYER AND SELLER, DUAL AGENCY WAS NOT DISCLOSED, PLAINTIFF NOT ENTITLED TO COMMISSION, STATEMENT IN COMPLAINT THAT PLAINTIFF WAS A BROKER WAS A JUDICIAL ADMISSION, PRECLUDING ANY CLAIM PLAINTIFF WAS MERELY A FINDER (FIRST DEPT))/EVIDENCE (JUDICIAL ADMISSION, PLAINTIFF ACTED AS A REAL ESTATE BROKER FOR BOTH BUYER AND SELLER, DUAL AGENCY WAS NOT DISCLOSED, PLAINTIFF NOT ENTITLED TO COMMISSION, STATEMENT IN COMPLAINT THAT PLAINTIFF WAS A BROKER WAS A JUDICIAL ADMISSION, PRECLUDING ANY CLAIM PLAINTIFF WAS MERELY A FINDER (FIRST DEPT))/JUDICIAL ADMISSION (PLAINTIFF ACTED AS A REAL ESTATE BROKER FOR BOTH BUYER AND SELLER, DUAL AGENCY WAS NOT DISCLOSED, PLAINTIFF NOT ENTITLED TO COMMISSION, STATEMENT IN COMPLAINT THAT PLAINTIFF WAS A BROKER WAS A JUDICIAL ADMISSION, PRECLUDING ANY CLAIM PLAINTIFF WAS MERELY A FINDER (FIRST DEPT))/ADMISSION (JUDICIAL ADMISSION, PLAINTIFF ACTED AS A REAL ESTATE BROKER FOR BOTH BUYER AND SELLER, DUAL AGENCY WAS NOT DISCLOSED, PLAINTIFF NOT ENTITLED TO COMMISSION, STATEMENT IN COMPLAINT THAT PLAINTIFF WAS A BROKER WAS A JUDICIAL ADMISSION, PRECLUDING ANY CLAIM PLAINTIFF WAS MERELY A FINDER (FIRST DEPT))

January 25, 2018

Contract Law, Real Estate

DEFENDANTS HAD NOT CLEARED UP LIENS ON THE PROPERTY ON LAW DAY, SO THEY WERE NOT READY TO CLOSE AND WERE NOT ENTITLED TO KEEP PLAINTIFFS’ DOWN PAYMENT, WHETHER DEFENDANTS HAD A DUTY TO SPEAK WHEN PLAINTIFFS ASKED FOR AN ADJOURNMENT OF THE CLOSING CANNOT BE DETERMINED ON A MOTION TO DISMISS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants-sellers, in the context of a motion to dismiss the complaint, were not entitled to keep the down payment based upon plaintiffs’ failure to attend the closing pursuant to a time of the essence demand. Defendants did not demonstrate they were able to close because there were outstanding liens on the property. In addition, there was a question whether defendants had a duty to speak when plaintiffs requested an adjournment of the closing, an issue that cannot be resolved in a motion to dismiss:

Here, the mortgage indebtedness on the subject property amounted to $11,265,000, nearly three times the portion of the purchase price due at the closing. The defendants only satisfied $8,850,000 of that indebtedness in October 2014, about six months after the law day. Further, in order to close, the defendants were required to clear other liens of up to $25,000, and deliver their corporation formation documents to the title company, which allegedly was not done.

On the question of specific performance, a purchaser seeking specific performance of a real estate contract must demonstrate that he or she was ready, willing, and able to perform on the contract, regardless of any anticipatory breach by the seller … . An anticipatory breach of the contract excuses the purchaser from tendering performance, but does not excuse the purchaser from the requirement that it be ready, willing, and able to perform … .

The defendants were not required to consent to the adjournment of a time-of-the-essence closing … . However, the question here is whether the defendants had any obligation to respond. A duty to speak arises where there is a duty of fair dealing between the parties pursuant to a contractual relationship, and failure to speak is inconsistent with “honest dealings” and misleads another… .. Such a duty may be created by a course of conduct … . Here, the plaintiff was a tenant of the defendants; therefore, there was a prior course of conduct not explored on this record, as well as opportunities to speak and actual communication between the parties with respect to this transaction one day prior to the law day. 533 Park Ave. Realty, LLC v Park Ave. Bldg. & Roofing Supplies, LLC, 2017 NY Slip Op 08802, Second Dept 12-20-17

REAL ESTATE (TIME OF THE ESSENCE, DEFENDANTS HAD NOT CLEARED UP LIENS ON THE PROPERTY ON LAW DAY, SO THEY WERE NOT READY TO CLOSE AND WERE NOT ENTITLED TO KEEP PLAINTIFFS’ DOWN PAYMENT, WHETHER DEFENDANTS HAD A DUTY TO SPEAK WHEN PLAINTIFFS ASKED FOR AN ADJOURNMENT OF THE CLOSING CANNOT BE DETERMINED ON A MOTION TO DISMISS (SECOND DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (REAL ESTATE, TIME OF THE ESSENCE, DEFENDANTS HAD NOT CLEARED UP LIENS ON THE PROPERTY ON LAW DAY, SO THEY WERE NOT READY TO CLOSE AND WERE NOT ENTITLED TO KEEP PLAINTIFFS’ DOWN PAYMENT, WHETHER DEFENDANTS HAD A DUTY TO SPEAK WHEN PLAINTIFFS ASKED FOR AN ADJOURNMENT OF THE CLOSING CANNOT BE DETERMINED ON A MOTION TO DISMISS (SECOND DEPT))/TIME OF THE ESSENCE (REAL ESTATE, DEFENDANTS HAD NOT CLEARED UP LIENS ON THE PROPERTY ON LAW DAY, SO THEY WERE NOT READY TO CLOSE AND WERE NOT ENTITLED TO KEEP PLAINTIFFS’ DOWN PAYMENT, WHETHER DEFENDANTS HAD A DUTY TO SPEAK WHEN PLAINTIFFS ASKED FOR AN ADJOURNMENT OF THE CLOSING CANNOT BE DETERMINED ON A MOTION TO DISMISS (SECOND DEPT))/DUTY TO SPEAK (REAL ESTATE, TIME OF THE ESSENCE, REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT, DEFENDANTS HAD NOT CLEARED UP LIENS ON THE PROPERTY ON LAW DAY, SO THEY WERE NOT READY TO CLOSE AND WERE NOT ENTITLED TO KEEP PLAINTIFFS’ DOWN PAYMENT, WHETHER DEFENDANTS HAD A DUTY TO SPEAK WHEN PLAINTIFFS ASKED FOR AN ADJOURNMENT OF THE CLOSING CANNOT BE DETERMINED ON A MOTION TO DISMISS (SECOND DEPT))/SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE (REAL ESTATE, TIME OF THE ESSENCE, DEFENDANTS HAD NOT CLEARED UP LIENS ON THE PROPERTY ON LAW DAY, SO THEY WERE NOT READY TO CLOSE AND WERE NOT ENTITLED TO KEEP PLAINTIFFS’ DOWN PAYMENT, WHETHER DEFENDANTS HAD A DUTY TO SPEAK WHEN PLAINTIFFS ASKED FOR AN ADJOURNMENT OF THE CLOSING CANNOT BE DETERMINED ON A MOTION TO DISMISS (SECOND DEPT)

December 20, 2017

Real Estate, Real Property Law

SECOND PURCHASER OF REAL PROPERTY DEMONSTRATED HE WAS A BONA FIDE PURCHASER WITHOUT NOTICE OF THE PLAINTIFF’S PRIOR PURCHASE CONTRACT, PLAINTIFF’S FILING OF A NOTICE OF PENDENCY DID NOT SERVE AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR RECORDING OF THE CONTRACT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the purchaser of real property, Bolender, had demonstrated he was a bona fide purchaser who did not have notice of plaintiff’s prior purchase contract. Although plaintiff had filed a notice of pendency after the deed was transferred to Bolender but before the deed was recorded, the notice of pendency was not sufficient to put Bolender on notice:

To establish that he was a bona fide purchaser for value, Bolender had the burden of proving that he purchased the property for valuable consideration and that he did not purchase with ” knowledge of facts that would lead a reasonably prudent purchaser to make inquiry'” … . “When two or more prospective buyers contract for a certain property, pursuant to Real Property Law §§ 291 and 294, priority is given to the buyer whose conveyance or contract is first duly recorded”… .

Here, Bolender established, prima facie, his entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him. His submissions demonstrated that he was a bona fide purchaser for value, that he purchased the subject property for valuable consideration, without prior notice of the plaintiff’s alleged interest in the subject property, and without knowledge of facts that would lead a reasonably prudent purchaser to make such an inquiry. Bolender further demonstrated that the deed for the subject property was delivered to him on November 21, 2014, and recorded on December 27, 2014.

In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Contrary to the plaintiff’s assertion, the proof that it filed a notice of pendency … failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Although New York has a so-called “race-notice” statutory scheme… , having failed to avail itself of the protection of either Real Property Law §§ 291 or 294, the plaintiff may not successfully contend that its filing of a notice of pendency serves as a substitute for the recording of a conveyance or a contract … . 139 Lefferts, LLC v Melendez, 2017 NY Slip Op 08647, Second Dept 12-13-17

REAL PROPERTY LAW (BONA FIDE PURCHASER, SECOND PURCHASER OF REAL PROPERTY DEMONSTRATED HE WAS A BONA FIDE PURCHASER WITHOUT NOTICE OF THE PLAINTIFF’S PRIOR PURCHASE CONTRACT, PLAINTIFF’S FILING OF A NOTICE OF PENDENCY DID NOT SERVE AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR RECORDING OF THE CONTRACT (SECOND DEPT))/REAL ESTATE (BONA FIDE PURCHASER, SECOND PURCHASER OF REAL PROPERTY DEMONSTRATED HE WAS A BONA FIDE PURCHASER WITHOUT NOTICE OF THE PLAINTIFF’S PRIOR PURCHASE CONTRACT, PLAINTIFF’S FILING OF A NOTICE OF PENDENCY DID NOT SERVE AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR RECORDING OF THE CONTRACT (SECOND DEPT))/BONA FIDE PURCHASE (REAL ESTATE, SECOND PURCHASER OF REAL PROPERTY DEMONSTRATED HE WAS A BONA FIDE PURCHASER WITHOUT NOTICE OF THE PLAINTIFF’S PRIOR PURCHASE CONTRACT, PLAINTIFF’S FILING OF A NOTICE OF PENDENCY DID NOT SERVE AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR RECORDING OF THE CONTRACT (SECOND DEPT))

December 13, 2017

Contract Law, Real Estate

BUYER OF PROPERTY WAS UNABLE TO RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER SELLER WAS AWARE OF UNDERGROUND GAS TANKS ON THE PROPERTY (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined the seller of the property demonstrated it could not be held liable for the underground gas tanks found on the property. The purchase and sale contract indicated only that the seller was not aware of any underground fuel tanks:

The court properly found that defendant did not breach the contract by failing to disclose the presence of underground gas tanks on the property. …[D]efendant guaranteed and warranted only that it had not generated, stored or disposed of hazardous materials and had no knowledge of the previous presence of such materials on the property. Plaintiff failed to present evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether defendant was responsible for the presence of the gas tanks or had any knowledge of it. The former owner of the property and a managing member of defendant testified that he was unaware of the presence of the gas tanks.

In addition, … defendant disclaimed and [did not make] any warranties or representations concerning environmental conditions. Plaintiff acknowledged that it was relying solely on its own expertise and consultants in this regard, and was purchasing the property “as is, where is” … . West 17th St. & Tenth Ave. Realty, LLC v N.E.W. Corp., 2017 NY Slip Op 08088, First Dept 11-16-17

REAL ESTATE (BUYER OF PROPERTY WAS UNABLE TO RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER SELLER WAS AWARE OF UNDERGROUND GAS TANKS ON THE PROPERTY (FIRST DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (REAL ESTATE, (BUYER OF PROPERTY WAS UNABLE TO RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER SELLER WAS AWARE OF UNDERGROUND GAS TANKS ON THE PROPERTY (FIRST DEPT))/ENVIRONMENTAL LAW (REAL ESTATE, BUYER OF PROPERTY WAS UNABLE TO RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER SELLER WAS AWARE OF UNDERGROUND GAS TANKS ON THE PROPERTY (FIRST DEPT))/UNDERGROUND GAS TANKS (REAL ESTATE, BUYER OF PROPERTY WAS UNABLE TO RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER SELLER WAS AWARE OF UNDERGROUND GAS TANKS ON THE PROPERTY (FIRST DEPT))

November 16, 2017

Contract Law, Real Estate, Tax Law

DOCTRINE OF TAX ESTOPPEL PREVENTED DEFENDANTS FROM ASSERTING FACTS ABOUT THE SALE OF PROPERTY CONTRARY TO THE INFORMATION IN THE REAL PROPERTY TRANSFER REPORT, PLAINTIFF’S ACTION TO ENFORCE A RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the doctrine of tax estoppel prevented defendants from asserting facts contrary to the information provided in the Real Property Transfer Report (RPT report). Plaintiff had a right of first refusal on the sale of defendants’ commercial property. Defendants sold the property without giving plaintiff the right of first refusal, claiming it was not a bona fide sale because the same person controlled the seller and the buyer, an allegation negated by the RPT report:

Under the doctrine of tax estoppel, ” [a] party to litigation may not take a position contrary to a position taken in [a] tax return’ ” … . Here, 428 Co. and SS jointly submitted a Real Property Transfer Report (RPT report) … to the Department of Taxation and Finance in which they certified that the transfer of the subject property was not a “sale between related companies or partners in business.” …

The sworn statements made in the RPT report further estop defendants from asserting that various mortgage assumptions worth over $2 million constituted part of the purchase price, and that plaintiff was therefore unwilling to purchase the property “at the same price and under the same terms” … . The instructions for the tax form require that any mortgage assumptions be listed as part of the “Full Sale Price” on the RPT report, and [defendants] did not do so here. … [Defendants] listed only a cash sale price of $238,493 as the “Full Sale Price” on the RPT report, and it is undisputed that plaintiff was ready, willing, and able to purchase the property for that amount. Amalfi, Inc. v 428 Co., Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 06770, Fourth Dept 9-29-17

REAL ESTATE (DOCTRINE OF TAX ESTOPPEL PREVENTED DEFENDANTS FROM ASSERTING FACTS ABOUT THE SALE OF PROPERTY CONTRARY TO THE INFORMATION IN THE REAL PROPERTY TRANSFER REPORT, PLAINTIFF’S ACTION TO ENFORCE A RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (REAL ESTATE, RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL, DOCTRINE OF TAX ESTOPPEL PREVENTED DEFENDANTS FROM ASSERTING FACTS ABOUT THE SALE OF PROPERTY CONTRARY TO THE INFORMATION IN THE REAL PROPERTY TRANSFER REPORT, PLAINTIFF’S ACTION TO ENFORCE A RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT))/TAX LAW (DOCTRINE OF TAX ESTOPPEL PREVENTED DEFENDANTS FROM ASSERTING FACTS ABOUT THE SALE OF PROPERTY CONTRARY TO THE INFORMATION IN THE REAL PROPERTY TRANSFER REPORT, PLAINTIFF’S ACTION TO ENFORCE A RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT))/TAX ESTOPPEL (DOCTRINE OF TAX ESTOPPEL PREVENTED DEFENDANTS FROM ASSERTING FACTS ABOUT THE SALE OF PROPERTY CONTRARY TO THE INFORMATION IN THE REAL PROPERTY TRANSFER REPORT, PLAINTIFF’S ACTION TO ENFORCE A RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT))

September 29, 2017

LAW REGARDING SALE OF PROPERTY OWNED BY TENANTS BY THE ENTIRETY WHERE ONLY ONE SPOUSE SIGNS THE CONTRACT EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).

COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE SELLERS OF A CONDOMINIUM FOR FRAUDULENTLY CONCEALING MOLD AND WATER DAMAGE IN THE CONDOMINIUM AND COMMON AREAS, THE COMPLAINT ALSO STATED A MALPRACTICE CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE BUYERS’ ATTORNEY (SECOND DEPT).

CONTRACT WAS ENFORCEABLE DESPITE PARTIES’ EXPECTATION A MORE FORMAL CONTRACT WOULD BE EXECUTED LATER, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO CONFORM THE COMPLAINT TO THE PROOF AT TRIAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

DOWNPAYMENT NOT FORFEITED BASED UPON THE BANK’S REVOCATION OF THE MORTGAGE COMMITMENT, NO SHOWING THE REVOCATION WAS DUE TO DEFENDANT PURCHASER’S BAD FAITH (FOURTH DEPT).

PLAINTIFF’S SILENCE COUPLED WITH GOING FORWARD TO ENTER THE LEASE CONSTITUTED ACCEPTANCE OF THE REAL ESTATE BROKER’S COUNTEROFFER FOR THE BROKERAGE FEE (SECOND DEPT).

PLAINTIFF ACTED AS A REAL ESTATE BROKER FOR BOTH BUYER AND SELLER, DUAL AGENCY WAS NOT DISCLOSED, PLAINTIFF NOT ENTITLED TO COMMISSION, STATEMENT IN COMPLAINT THAT PLAINTIFF WAS A BROKER WAS A JUDICIAL ADMISSION, PRECLUDING ANY CLAIM PLAINTIFF WAS MERELY A FINDER (FIRST DEPT).

SECOND PURCHASER OF REAL PROPERTY DEMONSTRATED HE WAS A BONA FIDE PURCHASER WITHOUT NOTICE OF THE PLAINTIFF’S PRIOR PURCHASE CONTRACT, PLAINTIFF’S FILING OF A NOTICE OF PENDENCY DID NOT SERVE AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR RECORDING OF THE CONTRACT (SECOND DEPT).

BUYER OF PROPERTY WAS UNABLE TO RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER SELLER WAS AWARE OF UNDERGROUND GAS TANKS ON THE PROPERTY (FIRST DEPT).

DOCTRINE OF TAX ESTOPPEL PREVENTED DEFENDANTS FROM ASSERTING FACTS ABOUT THE SALE OF PROPERTY CONTRARY TO THE INFORMATION IN THE REAL PROPERTY TRANSFER REPORT, PLAINTIFF’S ACTION TO ENFORCE A RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.