You are here: / Real Property Law
, , ,

AN ALBANY LOCAL LAW ADDED RESTRICTIONS TO EVICTION PROCEEDINGS AND RENT INCREASES WHICH ARE NOT IN THE STATE’S REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW AND REAL PROPERTY LAW; THE LOCAL LAW WAS THEREFORE PREEMPTED BY THE STATE LAW (CONFLICT PREEMPTION) (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Clark, determined the Albany Local Law governing evictions conflicted with the state Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law and Real Property Law and was therefore preempted by state law. The entire Local Law F section 2 was nullified. Local Law F section 2 added sections 30-324 through 30-331 to the Code of the City of Albany:

We agree with Supreme Court that Local Law F § 2 is preempted by state law. To that end, the Code of the City of Albany § 30-327 requires a landlord seeking to evict a tenant to prove the additional element of “good cause,” which grounds are enumerated in the Code of the City of Albany § 30-328. This additional element contravenes the statutory construction of RPAPL 711, which permits a landlord to seek eviction following the expiration of a tenant’s lease or following a tenant’s default on rent. By adding an element, the Code of the City of Albany §§ 30-327 and 30-328 “prohibit[ ] conduct specifically permitted by State law or impose[ ] restrictions on rights granted by the State”… . Similarly, the Code of the City of Albany §§ 30-327 and 30-328 contradict Real Property Law § 228, as they require a landlord seeking to evict a tenant at will or by sufferance who has provided 30 days’ notice to also establish good cause for the eviction. Further, the Code of the City of Albany § 30-328 interferes with a landlord’s right to increase rent in compliance with Real Property Law § 226-c, as it imposes the additional requirement that a landlord must rebut a presumption that a rent increase of 5% or more is unconscionable. Therefore, despite defendants’ good intentions, the Code of the City of Albany §§ 30-327 and 30-328 impose restrictions on rights granted to landlords by state law and, thus, Supreme Court properly declared those provisions nullified by conflict preemption … . Pusatere v City of Albany, 2023 NY Slip Op 01124, Third Dept 3-2-23

Practice Point: Here an Albany Local Law added restrictions to eviction proceedings and rent increases which are not in the state’s Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law and Real Property Law. The Local Law was therefore preempted by the state law (conflict preemption). Ultimately the entire Local Law was nullified.

 

, , ,

A JUDGE HAS DISCRETION TO DENY A MOTION FOR A DEFAULT JUDGMENT ON THE GROUND THE CAUSE OF ACTION HAS NOT BEEN SHOWN TO BE VIABLE; HERE THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE COMPLAINT, WHICH ARE DEEMED ADMITTED, STATED A VIABLE CAUSE OF ACTION AND THE MOTION FOR A DEFAULT JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in a case related to Aleyne v Rutland Dev. Group, Inc.,2023 NY Slip Op 00975, Second Dept 2-22-23 (also summarized in the Digest), determined plaintiff’s motion for a default judgment in this action to set aside a deed as forged should have been granted:

… [T]he plaintiff correctly contends that the motion for leave to enter a default judgment against Rutland was timely filed. The plaintiff served Rutland with the summons and complaint on March 25, 2019, pursuant to Business Corporation Law § 306 via service on the Secretary of State. Rutland defaulted by failing to appear or answer the complaint within 30 days (see CPLR 320[a]; 3012[c]). The plaintiff would have been required to take proceedings for the entry of a default judgment against Rutland within one year of the default, by April 24, 2020 (see id. § 3215[c]). However, time limitations in civil actions were tolled by executive order from March 20, 2020, until November 3, 2020 … . Since the plaintiff filed the motion on October 6, 2020, it was timely.

… “A plaintiff seeking leave to enter a default judgment under CPLR 3215 must file proof of: (1) service of a copy or copies of the summons and the complaint, (2) the facts constituting the claim, and (3) the defendant’s default” (…See CPLR 3215[f]). “[D]efaulters are deemed to have admitted all factual allegations contained in the complaint and all reasonable inferences that flow from them” … . However, “‘a court does not have a mandatory, ministerial duty to grant a motion for leave to enter a default judgment, and retains the discretionary obligation to determine whether the movant has met the burden of stating a viable cause of action'” … .

… [Plaintiff’s] submissions, including her affidavit in which she denied signing the deed and other documents related to the transfer of the property, were sufficient to demonstrate that her causes of action, insofar as asserted against Rutland, were viable … . Alleyne v Rutland Dev. Group, Inc., 2023 NY Slip Op 00976,Second Dept 2-22-23

Practice Point: A judge has the discretion to deny a motion for a default judgment if the plaintiff has not demonstrated the action was viable. Here the allegations in the complaint, which are deemed admitted by the failure to answer, stated a viable cause of action and the default judgment should have been awarded.

 

, ,

IF PLAINTIFF MOVED FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS ACTION TO SET ASIDE A DEED PLAINTIFF WOULD HAVE HAD TO PROVE THE DEED WAS FORGED; TO WIN A MOTION TO DISMISS BASED ON DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE, HOWEVER, THE DEFENDANT MUST UTTERLY REFUTE PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATION THE DEED WAS FORGED WHICH DEFENDANT FAILED TO DO HERE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s (Golden Bridge’s) motion to dismiss this action to set aside a deed (allegedly forged) should not have been granted. The decision clearly lays out the subtle but crucial differences in proof requirements between a defendant’s motion to dismiss based on documentary evidence and a a plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.

On February 3, 2004, the plaintiff acquired title to real property located in Brooklyn. In 2017, the property was transferred to the defendant Rutland Development Group, Inc. (hereinafter Rutland), by the deed that is the subject of this action. Rutland granted the defendant Golden Bridge, LLC (hereinafter Golden Bridge), a mortgage on the property in exchange for the sum of $625,000. * * *

“On a motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) for failure to state a cause of action, the court must afford the pleading a liberal construction, accept all facts as alleged in the pleading to be true, accord the plaintiff the benefit of every possible inference, and determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory” … . Where evidentiary material is submitted and considered on a motion to dismiss a complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), and the motion is not converted into one for summary judgment, the question becomes whether the plaintiff has a cause of action, not whether the plaintiff has stated one, and, unless it has been shown that a material fact as claimed by the plaintiff to be one is not a fact at all and unless it can be said that no significant dispute exists regarding it, dismissal should not eventuate … . A motion to dismiss a complaint based upon CPLR 3211(a)(1) may be granted “only where the documentary evidence utterly refutes [a] plaintiff’s factual allegations, conclusively establishing a defense as a matter of law” … . …

Here, in support of its motion, Golden Bridge submitted … a notary’s certificate of acknowledgment attesting that the plaintiff had appeared before him … , and executed the subject deed or acknowledged her execution thereof, a resolution by Rutland authorizing the plaintiff to borrow a sum of money from Golden Bridge on Rutland’s behalf, and bank checks … . Although Golden Bridge did proffer some evidence that the plaintiff may have received consideration as a result of the transfer of the property, Golden Bridge’s evidentiary submissions were insufficient to utterly refute the plaintiff’s allegations that the deed and other relevant documents were forged, she received no consideration, and she did not have any relationship to Rutland (see CPLR 4538 …). On a motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff would have had to proffer evidence so clear and convincing as to amount to a moral certainty, in order to rebut the presumption, based on the notary’s certificate of acknowledgment, that the deed was duly executed (see CPLR 4538 …). Here, however, on a motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a), the questions are whether the plaintiff has a cause of action and whether Golden Bridge conclusively established a defense as a matter of law. Aleyne v Rutland Dev. Group, Inc.,2023 NY Slip Op 00975, Second Dept 2-22-23

Practice Point: Here in this action to set aside a deed as forged, the proof requirements for a plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and defendant’s motion to dismiss based on documentary evidence were compared. In the summary judgment motion, plaintiff would have to prove the deed was forged. In the motion to dismiss, the defendant must produce documentary evidence which utterly refutes plaintiff’s allegation the deed was forged–two very different standards of proof.

 

, ,

THE STIPULATION SETTING A DATE FOR THE CLOSING ON DEFENDANT’S PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTY DID NOT INFORM DEFENDANT HE WOULD BE CONSIDERED TO BE IN DEFAULT IF THE CLOSING DID NOT TAKE PLACE BY THAT DATE; THEREFORE THERE WAS NO “TIME OF THE ESSENCE” AGREEMENT AND PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ENTITLED TO THE DOWN PAYMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the stipulation waiving defendant’s payment of rent as long as the closing on defendant’s purchase of the property occurred by a designated date did not inform defendant “time was of the essence” such that plaintiff could keep the down payment:

Sometime after the parties entered into the contract, the defendant commenced a landlord-tenant proceeding against the plaintiff, which the parties settled in a stipulation dated February 16, 2011. Paragraph 2 of the stipulation provided that “[i]n settlement and satisfaction of all claims by [the plaintiff], and in consideration of [the plaintiff] closing title on the purchase of 1474 Ralph Avenue, Brooklyn, New York, no later than March 31, 2011, [the defendant] waives the rent due for July 2010.” The closing never occurred. * * *

Where, as here, “time was not made of the essence in the original contract” … , “one party may make time of the essence by giving proper notice to the other party” … and avail himself [or herself] of forfeiture on default” … . “The notice setting a new date for the closing must (1) give clear, distinct, and unequivocal notice that time is of the essence, (2) give the other party a reasonable time in which to act, and (3) inform the other party that if he [or she] does not perform by the designated date, he [or she] will be considered in default” … . “A party need not state specifically that time is of the essence, as long as the notice specifies a time on which to close and warns that failure to close on that date will result in default” … . It does not matter that the date is unilaterally set … , and “[w]hat constitutes a reasonable time for performance depends upon the facts and circumstances of the particular case” … .

… [T]he stipulation did not inform the plaintiff that if he did not perform, he would be considered in default … . Lashley v BDL Real Estate Dev. Corp., 2023 NY Slip Op 00314, Second Dept 1-25-23

Practice Point: To trigger “time is of the essence” the defendant must be informed that failure to close the real estate purchase by the designated date will place the defendant in default.

 

, ,

ALTHOUGH THE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY (LLC) VOTING AGREEMENT CONCERNED THE SALE OF REAL PROPERTY, IT WAS NOT SUBJECT TO THE STATUTE-OF-FRAUDS PROHIBITION OF ORAL AGREEMENTS (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the counterclaim adequately alleged breach of contract. The contract was an LLC voting agreement which was not subject to the statute of frauds even though the agreement authorized the sale of real property:

Supreme Court should not have dismissed defendants’ counterclaims for breach of contract and specific performance, which it properly construed as a single claim for breach of contract seeking specific performance and monetary relief. The alleged agreement at issue was not an unenforceable oral contract for the sale of real property, as it did not provide for the sale or transfer of real property or any party’s interest in real property (see General Obligations Law § 5-703[2]). Instead, giving defendants’ allegations every favorable inference, defendants sufficiently pled that the oral agreement was effectively an LLC voting agreement under which plaintiff agreed to vote her membership interest in favor of defendants’ sale of their membership interests or a sale of the property. Tsai v Lo, 2023 NY Slip Op 00291, First Dept 1-24-23

Practice Point: Although the voting agreement concerned the sale of real property by the limited liability company, it was not subject to the statute-of-frauds prohibition of oral agreements.

 

AN UNRESTRICTED EASEMENT ALLOWING ACCESS TO A LAKE ENCOMPASSES THE RIGHT TO INSTALL, MAINTAIN AND USE A DOCK (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that an unrestricted easement which allows access to a lake encompasses the right to installation, maintenance and use of a dock:

… [T]he relevant deeds … established that there were no restrictions on the easement and that the purpose of the right-of-way was to provide ingress to and egress from the lake … .. Given the purpose of the easement and the absence of restrictions, “any reasonable lawful use [by plaintiffs] within the contemplation of the grant is permissible” … , and the installation, maintenance, and use of a dock at the end of a right-of-way providing access to a lake is a “reasonable use incidental to the purpose of the easement” … . Mosley v Parnell, 2022 NY Slip Op 07342, Fourth Dept 12-23-22

Practice Point: An unrestricted easement allowing access to a lake encompasses the right to install, maintain and use a dock.

 

, ,

ALTHOUGH THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN PLAINTIFF COUNTRY CLUB AND DEFENDANT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE AND USE OF A BOAT SLIP WAS A LICENSE, NOT A LEASE, THE LICENSE, BY THE TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT, WAS NOT TERMINABLE AT WILL BY THE COUNTRY CLUB; TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined the agreement between plaintiff country club and defendant concerning the construction, maintenance and use of a boat slip was a license, not a lease, but, under the terms of the agreement, the license was not terminable at will by the country club:

… [T]he terms of the agreement unambiguously state that defendant is required to pay the annual maintenance fee and to comply with plaintiff’s rules and policies, thereby establishing through implication that plaintiff may terminate the license only when defendant fails to comply with those specified terms … . Plaintiff’s interpretation of the agreement as permitting plaintiff to terminate the license at will, despite the aforementioned provisions governing defendant’s obligations, renders those specific provisions nugatory, contrary to the general approach to interpreting contracts …

… [T]he agreement expressly permits defendant to terminate it and receive a return of the monies contributed pursuant to the payment agreement, less any monies owed to plaintiff. We agree with defendant that the express inclusion of a right of termination for her compels the conclusion that the exclusion of any corresponding express right for plaintiff to terminate the agreement was intentional … . … [The] structure of the agreement establishes that the license is not terminable at will by plaintiff. Skaneateles Country Club v Cambs, 2022 NY Slip Op 07315, Fourth Dept 12-23-22

Practice Point: Licenses for the use of real property, here the construction, maintenance and use of a boat slip, are not automatically terminable at will. Here the terms of the underlying agreement were interpreted to mean the license was terminable only if defendant breached the agreement.

 

,

THERE IS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER A PRIOR OWNER OF DEFENDANT’S PROPERTY WAS AWARE OF PLAINTIFF’S INSTALLATION OF A SEPTIC SYSTEM ON DEFENDANT’S PROPERTY GIVING RISE TO A PRESCRIPTIVE EASEMENT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined there was a question of fact whether plaintiff was entitled to a prescriptive easement with respect to a septic system which encroached on defendant’s property:

Plaintiff represents in her complaint that the septic system was installed “[a]t least as early as the 1920s.” The septic system was ostensibly concealed until 1997, when plaintiff replaced part of the tank. Moreover, a June 2000 letter from defendants’ father, the prior owner of the property, to his attorney indicates that he was aware of a septic tank that had been installed too close to the well on plaintiff’s land … . Although the record is sparse on information concerning plaintiff’s septic tank, the first indication that defendants sought any information from plaintiff concerning permission for the installation of the septic tank came in September 2018. In this respect, there is evidence suggesting a triable issue of fact as to whether plaintiff can establish that the septic system was installed with defendants’ predecessors’ knowledge and hostile to their interests. Accordingly, we find that defendants are not entitled to judgment as a matter of law as to whether plaintiff can establish her cause of action for a prescriptive easement in relation to the presence of the septic tank … which will ultimately implicate whether or not the tank constitutes a trespass … . Sasscer v Vesey, 2022 NY Slip Op 07286, Third Dept 12-22-22

Practice Point: Here there was a question of fact whether the prior owner of defendant’s property was aware plaintiff’s installation of a septic system encroached on defendant’s land, giving rise to a prescriptive easement.

 

,

PLAINTIFFS WERE ENTITLED TO LIQUIDATED DAMAGES OF $1000 PER DAY FOR THE TIME PLAINTIFFS WERE UNABLE TO LIVE IN THEIR TOWNHOUSE BECAUSE OF THE DEFENDANTS’ RENOVATIONS NEXT DOOR (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a decision addressing many issues not summarized here, determined the plaintiffs were entitled to liquidated damages of $1000 per day for the time plaintiffs were unable to live in their townhouse because of the renovation work undertaken by the defendants next door:

On May 2, 2013, after intensive negotiations guided by legal counsel, Mr. Seymour [plaintiff] and the Hovnanians [defendants] executed a license agreement. The purpose of the license agreement was to grant the Hovnanians 18 months of access to the Seymours’ property while simultaneously protecting the Seymours’ property from further harm during construction. The license agreement contained a liquidated damages clause providing that if the “Project Owner failed to obtain a temporary certificate of occupancy (TCO) within Eighteen (18) months from the date of this Agreement, he shall pay liquidated damages to the Adjacent Owner of $1,000 per day for every day thereafter until the TCO is issued.” The Hovnanians never obtained a temporary certificate of occupancy but, 318 days after the expiration of the 18-month license term, they obtained a certificate of occupancy. …

The court correctly awarded plaintiffs $318,000 in liquidated damages, plus interest, comprised of $1,000 per day for the period of November 2, 2014 to September 15, 2015. “Liquidated damages constitute the compensation which, the parties have agreed, should be paid in order to satisfy any loss or injury flowing from a breach of their contract” … . These provisions “have value in those situations where it would be difficult, if not actually impossible, to calculate the amount of actual damage” … . Liquidated damages will be sustained if, at the time of the contract, “the amount liquidated bears a reasonable proportion to the probable loss and the amount of actual loss is incapable or difficult of precise estimation” … . Seymour v Hovnanian, 2022 NY Slip Op 07172, First Dept 12-15-22

Practice Point: Here the license agreement properly required liquidated damages of $1000 per day for the time plaintiffs were not able to live in their townhouse because of defendants’ renovations next door.

 

,

DEFENDANT WAS A GOOD-FAITH PURCHASER OF THE REAL PROPERTY AND WAS ENTITLED TO A DECLARATION OF SOLE OWNERSHIP; DEFENDANT PURCHASED THE PROPERTY FROM THE RECORD OWNER AND WAS UNAWARE OF THE UNRECORDED BENEFICIAL OWNERSHIP AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE RECORD OWNER AND PLAINTIFF WHO RESIDED ON THE PROPERTY; THE FACT THAT PLAINTIFF FILED A NOTICE OF PENDENCY BEFORE DEFENDANT RECORDED THE DEED HAD NO EFFECT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s (Vertex’s) motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and declaring defendant was the sole owner of the real property should have been granted. Vertex purchased the property from the record owner. The fact that the record owner had entered into an unrecorded agreement acknowledging beneficial ownership by others who contributed to the purchase price, including plaintiff, who resided on the property, did not affect defendant’s status as a good-faith purchaser, despite plaintiff’s filing a notice of pendency prior to defendant’s recording of the deed:

… [T]o establish itself as a bona fide purchaser for value, a party has the burden of proving that it purchased the property for valuable consideration and did not have “knowledge of facts that would lead a reasonably prudent purchaser to make inquiry” … .

… Vertex established … that it purchased the subject property for valuable consideration, without actual or constructive notice of the plaintiff’s alleged interest … . Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, his filing of a notice of pendency against the property before Vertex filed its deed did not negate Vertex’s status as a good-faith purchaser … . “[H]aving 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” … . Vertex also established … that the plaintiff’s occupancy at the property “was not inconsistent with the title of the apparent owner of record,” and thus, did not defeat Vertex’s status as a good-faith purchaser … . In addition, Vertex established … that the 2008 agreement did not negate its status as a good-faith purchaser, as that agreement was insufficient to satisfy the statute of frauds (see General Obligations Law § 5-703 …). Bello v Ouellette, 2022 NY Slip Op 07043, Second Dept 12-14-22

Practice Point: Here plaintiff had entered an unrecorded written agreement with the record owner of the real property indicating plaintiff, who resided on the property, had a one-fourth beneficial interest in the property. Defendant was unaware of the agreement. Defendant’s goof-faith-purchaser status was not affected by the fact that plaintiff filed a notice of pendency before defendant recorded the deed.

 

Categories

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

Copyright © 2023 New York Appellate Digest, LLC
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy