You are here: / Real Estate
,

Pursuant to the Doctrine of Caveat Emptor, Seller of Home Was Not Obligated to Disclose Information About the Possibility of the Incursion of Golf Balls from the Neighboring Golf Course

The Second Department determined a complaint alleging fraudulent concealment against the seller of plaintiffs’ home (Glickenhous) was properly dismissed.  Plaintiffs bought property bordering a golf course.  After a tree bordering the course fell, golf balls landed on plaintiffs’ property.  The doctrine of caveat emptor required the dismissal of the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) [documentary evidence utterly refutes allegations in the complaint] and CPLR 3211(a)(7) [pleading does not state a cause of action] :

“New York adheres to the doctrine of caveat emptor and imposes no duty on the seller or the seller’s agent to disclose any information concerning the premises when the parties deal at arm’s length, unless there is some conduct on the part of the seller or the seller’s agent which constitutes active concealment” … . “Mere silence on the part of the seller, without some affirmative act of deception, is not actionable as fraud” … . ” 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'” … . “Where the facts represented are not matters peculiarly within the party’s knowledge, and the other party has the means available to him of knowing, by the exercise of ordinary intelligence, the truth or the real quality of the subject of the representation, he must make use of those means, or he will not be heard to complain that he was induced to enter into the transaction by misrepresentations” … .

Here, Glickenhaus had no duty to disclose any information regarding the premises under the doctrine of caveat emptor … . Moreover, any risk to the property posed by the incursion of golf balls was a matter readily ascertainable by the plaintiffs through the exercise of ordinary intelligence, and the documentary evidence submitted on the motion demonstrates that any such concerns were a matter of public record not peculiarly within the knowledge of Glickenhaus … . Behar v Glickenhaus Westchester Dev Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 07969, 2nd Dept 11-19-14

,

Real Estate Broker Not an Employee of Commercial Real Estate Firm

The Third Department upheld the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board’s determination that claimant, a real estate broker, was not an employee of a commercial real estate firm (Optimal):

It is well settled that the existence of an employment relationship is a factual issue for the Board to decide and its determination will be upheld if supported by substantial evidence … . The pertinent inquiry is whether the purported employer exercised control over the results produced or the means used to achieve those results, with control over the latter being more important … .

Evidence was presented that claimant was paid a commission of 60% of the brokerage fee collected by Optimal, which she negotiated with Optimal’s senior managing director. Moreover, claimant did not have an established work schedule or work location, independently maintained her own real estate license, carried her own business cards and was permitted to and did receive commissions on referrals from other parties. Notably, she was not required to report to anyone at Optimal nor was she required to accept leads that Optimal sent to her. In view of the foregoing, while we are unable to conclude, as a matter of law that no employment relationship exists (see Labor Law § 511 [19]), substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that Optimal did not exercise sufficient control over claimant’s work to be deemed her employer … . Matter of Spielberger…, 2014 Slip Op 07564, 3rd Dept 11-6-14

 

,

Sellers Entitled to Keep Downpayment Based Upon Purchaser’s Failure to Close on Law Day

The Second Department determined Supreme Court should have granted the sellers’ motion for summary judgment and allowed the sellers to keep the purchaser’s downpayment based upon the purchaser’s failure to close on the date set by a “time-of-the-essence” demand.  The court explained the applicable law as follows:

“To prevail on a cause of action for the return of a down payment on a contract for the sale of real property, the plaintiff must establish that the defendant breached or repudiated the contract and that the plaintiff was ready, willing, and able to perform on the closing date” … . “While a vendee can recover his [or her] money paid on the contract from a vendor who defaults on law day without a showing of tender or even of willingness and ability to perform where the vendor’s title is incurably defective, a tender and demand are required to put the vendor in default where his [or her] title could be cleared without difficulty in a reasonable time” … . The seller in such a case is entitled to “a reasonable time beyond law day to make his [or her] title good” … . “[W]hile a purchaser must normally first tender performance and demand good title to place a seller in default, when the vendor is given notice of the defect prior to the scheduled closing date and does nothing to correct it until after the closing date, the purchaser need not tender performance as such tender would be meaningless'” … . “[W]here a seller seeks to hold a purchaser in breach of contract, the seller must establish that [he or she] was ready, willing, and able to perform on the time-of-the-essence closing date, and that the purchaser failed to demonstrate a lawful excuse for its failure to close” … . *  *  *

…[T]he sellers demonstrated, prima facie, that they were given no notice of the alleged defect, and that the purchaser was therefore required to appear at closing and tender her performance … . Furthermore, under these circumstances, the sellers were entitled to a reasonable adjournment to allow them to address the purchaser’s objections, notwithstanding the fact that they had declared that time was of the essence … . Moreover, the sellers satisfied their prima facie burden of demonstrating that they were ready, willing, and able to perform on the time-of-the-essence closing date, and that the purchaser failed to demonstrate a lawful excuse for her failure to close … . Martocci v Schneider, 2014 NY Slip Op -5308, 2nd Dept 7-16-14

 

, , ,

Writing Which Omitted Certain Crucial Terms Was an “Agreement to Agree,” Not an Enforceable Real Estate Sales Contract

The First Department determined that a writing [the September 14 letter] which included some terms of the sale of church property for $15 million constituted an “agreement to agree” and not an enforceable real estate sales contract.  The writing identified the parties, the property, the amount of the downpayment and the price of the property.  At some point after the writing was signed, the defendant property owner told the plaintiff it was negotiating the sale of the property to another and, if the plaintiff wanted to buy, the price would be $17.5 million.  The plaintiff then sued for breach of contract and specific performance.  In finding the writing was not an enforceable real estate sales contract, the court noted that several crucial terms were missing, including the failure to mention the required court-approval of the sale of church property pursuant to the not-for-profit corporation law, and the failure to include details of the escrow agreement:

…[W]e agree with defendant that the September 14 letter did not contain all of the material terms which one would reasonably have expected to be included under the circumstances, rendering the September 14 letter unenforceable. For example, while the September 14 letter contemplated that the down payment would be held in escrow, it failed to identify who the escrow agent would be and left to future negotiations “a reasonably acceptable escrow agreement.” Since “[n];o contract for the sale of real property can be created when a material element of the contemplated bargain has been left for further negotiations,” …, and the details of an escrow arrangement are certainly material, this alone warranted the motion court’s conclusion that the letter was not a contract.

Further, the contemplated transaction was unique, insofar as it was contingent on approval by the court and the Attorney General. While we do not question that defendant was entitled to agree to a sale of the property prior to seeking such approval …, one would expect that an agreement would have contained such material terms as defendant’s duty to seek approval in a diligent manner, and the consequences of a failure to secure such approval. Indeed, it has been held that the contingency created by a condominium association’s right of first refusal is material to an agreement to sell an individual condominium apartment … .  Argent Acquisitions LLC v First Church of Religious Science, 2014 NY Slip Op 04048, 1st Dept 6-5-14

 

,

Broker’s Complaint Stated Causes of Action for Breach of Implied Contract and Unjust Enrichment—Complaint Alleged Broker Was Entitled to a Commission Where Defendant Buyers Abandoned the Potential Purchase in which Broker Was Involved and 18 Months Later Purchased Nearly Identical Property from the Same Seller

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Acosta, determined a real estate broker (SPRE) had sufficiently stated causes of action for breach of implied contract and unjust enrichment.  The complaint alleged that the broker introduced the defendants to the developer of condominium units (397 West) and found an architect.  The defendants subsequently informed the broker they were no longer looking to buy.  18 months later the defendants purchased different but nearly identical condominium units from the same developer:

In this appeal, we must determine whether plaintiff broker has alleged facts sufficient to establish its entitlement to a commission on the sale of real estate, where it expended significant effort locating an apartment for buyers who abandoned the transaction and purchased another apartment in the same building 18 months later. In addition, we take this opportunity to clarify the standard by which a broker may be found to have been the “procuring cause” of a real estate transaction. We find that the complaint sufficiently alleges that plaintiff was a direct and proximate link between the introduction of defendant buyers and the seller and the consummation of the transaction to withstand defendants’ motion to dismiss. * * *

“[I];n the absence of an agreement to the contrary, a real estate broker will be deemed to have earned his commission when he [or she]; produces a buyer who is ready, willing and able to purchase at the terms set by the seller” … . A broker does not earn a commission merely by calling the property to the attention of the buyer … . But this does not mean that the broker “must have been the dominant force in the conduct of the ensuing negotiations or in the completion of the sale” (id. at 206). Rather, the broker must be the “procuring cause” of the transaction, meaning that “there must be a direct and proximate link, as distinguished from one that is indirect and remote,” between the introduction by the broker and the consummation of the transaction … . * * *

In the present case, … under the … “direct and proximate link” standard, we find that the allegations in the complaint sufficiently state that SPRE was the procuring cause of defendants’ purchase of the second duplex at 397 West. SPRE brought defendants to the building on several occasions; introduced defendants to the developer and attended several meetings between the developer and defendants; reviewed floor plans with defendants; negotiated favorable terms for defendants on the original units; prepared a deal sheet with defendants’ preliminary offer terms on the first duplex for the developer’s consideration; drafted a contract of sale; and connected defendants with a reputable architect whom SPRE specially selected to implement defendants’ design plans. Affording these allegations a liberal construction, we find that they establish that SPRE’s actions and efforts may have been a direct and proximate link between the introduction of defendants to the developer and defendants’ purchase of the second duplex at 397 West. Whether SPRE was the procuring cause “is a question of fact to be decided on the evidence” … . SPRE Realty Ltd v Dienst, 2014 NY Slip Op 03642, 1st Dept 5-20-14

 

No Question of Fact Raised About Whether Buyer Was a Bona Fide Purchaser

The Third Department determined summary judgment was properly granted in favor of a bona fide purchaser(Doyle) of property that had been the subject of plaintiff’s prior sales contract:

…[W]e reject plaintiff’s assertion that Supreme Court erred in finding that Doyle was a bona fide purchaser as a matter of law. “A bona fide purchaser — one who purchases real property in good faith, for valuable consideration, without actual or record notice of another party’s adverse interests in the property and is the first to record the deed or conveyance — takes title free and clear of such adverse interests” … . In support of his motion, Doyle averred that he purchased the property for $455,000, recorded the deed on April 20, 2012 and “was unaware of any contract to purchase [the property] between [NKT] and anyone” prior to doing so. He also denied having ever heard of either plaintiff or its principal prior to filing the deed. [Counsel] confirms that he did not inform Doyle of the negotiations with plaintiff — or even of plaintiff’s existence — prior to the sale of the property. Further, the recording page accompanying the deed — which indicates a purchase price of $455,000 and reflects payment of a transfer tax commensurate with that amount — corroborates Doyle’s allegation regarding the consideration paid for the property (see Tax Law § 1402 [a]). Given this evidence, the burden shifted to plaintiff to raise a question of fact as to whether Doyle “ha[d] knowledge of any fact, sufficient to put him on inquiry [notice] as to the existence of some right or title in conflict with that he [was] about to purchase”… . 10 Cardinal Lane LLC v NKT Land Acquisitions Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 02990, 3rd Dept 5-1-14

 

No Allegation of Active Concealment of Defects on Part of Seller/Buyer Can Not Sue for Defects Discovered after the Closing Based Solely Upon Seller’s Silence

In affirming the grant of summary judgment to the seller of property, the Second Department explained the doctrine of “caveat emptor.”  The complaint alleged the plaintiffs became aware of flooding problems and mechanical problems after the closing.

” New York adheres to the doctrine of caveat emptor and imposes no duty on the seller or the seller’s agent to disclose any information concerning the premises when the parties deal at arm’s length, unless there is some conduct on the part of the seller or the seller’s agent 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 [or her] responsibilities fixed by the doctrine of caveat emptor'” … . Here, in opposition to the respondent’s prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the respondent engaged in conduct that would constitute active concealment. Mo v Rosen, 2014 NY Slip Op 02758, 2nd Dept 4-23-14

 

Question of Fact Whether Owner of Servient State Had Duty to Maintain Easement in Safe Condition/Easement Used for Servient-Estate-Owner’s Own Purposes

The Second Department explained when the owner of a servient estate has a duty to maintain an easement in a safe condition:

While an easement generally imposes no affirmative duty on the owner of the servient estate to maintain and repair structures …, such an owner may be required to perform maintenance functions where it makes use of the easement for its own purposes and that use does not interfere with the legitimate activities of the holder of the dominant estate … . Under those circumstances, the owner of the servient estate may retain its duty as a landowner to maintain the portion of its premises that is subject to the easement in a reasonably safe condition, provided that such maintenance subjects the owner of the servient estate to no unusual hazards and requires no special expertise … .

Here, the Supreme Court correctly determined that the appellants failed to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, since their submissions revealed the existence of a triable issue of fact as to whether they have used the portion of the property that is subject to the easements for their own purposes by creating and maintaining a private, for-profit parking lot upon that portion of the property. Kleyner v City of New York, 2014 NY Slip Op 01584, 2nd Dept 3-12-14

 

,

Broker Entitled to Commission Based Upon Defendant’s Refusal of a Purchase Offer/Copy of Purchase Offer Properly Put in Evidence

The Third Department determined plaintiff real estate broker was entitled to a commission because he presented a willing buyer at the price agreed to in the listing agreement and one of the property owners, the defendant, refused the offer because he no longer wanted to sell. In the course of the decision, the court noted that a copy of the purchase offer was properly received in evidence (in the absence of the original):

“In the absence of an agreement to the contrary, a real estate broker will be deemed to have earned his [or her] commission when he [or she] produces a buyer who is ready, willing and able to purchase at the terms set by the seller” … . The listing agreement identified the parties, the property, the asking price, and an agreement to pay an 8% commission in exchange for plaintiff producing a buyer.  This was sufficient information to create a valid listing agreement … .  Defendant asserts that the listing agreement is invalid because not all of the property owners signed it … .  However, a contract to pay compensation to a real estate broker or salesperson need not be in writing to be effective (see General Obligations Law § 5-701 [a] [10]).  …

Supreme Court did not err in accepting into evidence a copy of a second version of the offer to purchase.  Although the best evidence rule “requires the production of an original writing where its contents are in dispute and sought to be proven” …, secondary evidence of the contents of an unproduced original document may be admitted where the court finds a sufficient explanation for the absence of the original, that the proponent “has not procured its loss or destruction in bad faith,” and that the secondary evidence accurately reflects the original … .  Posson … v Przestrzelski, 516677, 3rd Dept 11-27-13

 

,

Pre-Closing Documents Can Not Be Used to Prove Conveyance or the Issuance of Title Insurance

The Court of Appeals determined that a third-party purchaser of mortgages in the secondary mortgage market could not “rely on pre-closing documents to establish that a proper conveyance and recording of the underlying property occurred or that title insurance for the property was issued.”  DLJ Mortgage Capital, Inc v Kontogiannis…, 253 SSM 29, CtApp 11-14-13

 

Categories

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

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy