You are here: / Real Property Law
, ,

Original Grantor Has the Power to Remove Restrictive Covenants from a Deed/Land Conveyed for Public Use Which Is Subject to a Condition Subsequent (Here a Reversionary Interest in the Deed) Is Not Covered by the Public Trust Doctrine (Legislative Approval for Conveyance for Private Use Not Required)

The Second Department upheld an agreement to remove restrictive covenants from a deed, allowing the village, to which the property had been conveyed, to retain the property free and clear from restrictions. The deed to the village from the Ortenbergs (husband and wife) included a covenant that the property would remain in its natural state for public purposes for the life of the village.  If the village ceased maintaining the property in a natural state, or if the village ceased to exist, the property reverted to the Ortenbergs, their heirs and assigns. After Mrs. Ortenberg died, Mr. Orternberg entered an agreement with the village to remove the restrictive covenants. The petitioners, owners of contiguous land, brought an Article 78 petition arguing that the agreement violated the public trust doctrine which requires the approval of the New York State Legislature before the land held for public use could be converted to private use.  The Second Department noted that the public trust doctrine does not apply to land conveyed for public use subject to a condition subsequent (the reversionary interest). The court also noted that the agreement was not subject to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA):

Ortenberg, as the grantor, had the authority to release the Village from its obligation to perform the conditions in the deed and thereupon waive and terminate his reversionary interest (… see a… EPTL 6-5.1). Moreover, the Village was not required to obtain the approval of the New York State Legislature before mutually rescinding the underlying agreement with Ortenberg. Under the public trust doctrine, “a municipality, without specific legislative sanction, may not permit property acquired or held by it for public use to be wholly or partly diverted to a possession or use exclusively private” …, but this doctrine is inapplicable to property which is subject to a reversionary interest … . Where “the land acquired by the [municipality] for public . . . purposes was conveyed subject to a condition subsequent it is not under the control of the Legislature” … . Matter of Rappaport v Village of Saltaire, 2015 NY Slip Op 06246, 2nd Dept 7-22-15

 

, , ,

Defendant Not Entitled to Attorney’s Fees after Plaintiff’s Motion for a Voluntary Discontinuance in a Foreclosure Action Was Granted Without Prejudice—Defendant Was Not a “Prevailing Party” within the Meaning of Real Property Law 282—Denial of Attorney’s Fees Was Not an Abuse of Discretion Under CPLR 3217 (c)

After the grant of plaintiff’s motion for a voluntary discontinuance (without prejudice) of a foreclosure action defendant (Rivera) sought the award of attorney’s fees pursuant to Real Property Law 282 and CPLR 3217 (b). The Second Department determined Supreme Court properly denied the request for attorney’s fees. Under the Real Property Law, the prevailing party is entitled to attorney’s fees, but plaintiff’s voluntary discontinuance was not on the merits.  Therefore defendant was not the prevailing party within the meaning of the statute. The award of attorney’s fees under CPLR 3217 (b) is discretionary and Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in denying the request:

In New York, “attorneys’ fees are deemed incidental to litigation and may not be recovered unless supported by statute, court rule or written agreement of the parties” … .

[Real Property Law 282] provides that “[w]henever a covenant contained in a mortgage on residential real property shall provide that . . . the mortgagee may recover attorneys’ fees and/or expenses incurred as the result of the failure of the mortgagor to perform any covenant or agreement contained in such mortgage . . . there shall be implied in such mortgage a covenant by the mortgagee to pay to the mortgagor the reasonable attorneys’ fees and/or expenses incurred by the mortgagor . . . in the successful defense of any action or proceeding commenced by the mortgagee against the mortgagor arising out of the contract” (Real Property Law § 282). * * *

Here, the voluntary discontinuance of this action pursuant to CPLR 3217(c) was without prejudice and there was no substantive determination on the merits of either the plaintiff’s cause of action or Rivera’s counterclaims and defenses. Accordingly, Rivera was not a prevailing party for the purposes of Real Property Law § 282 and was not entitled to an award of an attorney’s fee for a “successful defense” of this foreclosure action (Real Property Law § 282…).

* * * The determination of whether to award an attorney’s fee [pursuant to CPLR 3217 (c)] as a condition of granting a voluntary discontinuance is a matter left to the sound discretion of the court … . Here, under the circumstances, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of Rivera’s motion which was for an award of an attorney’s fee pursuant to CPLR 3217(b) … . DKR Mtge. Asset Trust 1 v Rivera, 2015 NY Slip Op 06108, 2nd Dept 7-15-15

 

, , , , ,

Claims Against the State Based Upon Recurrent Flooding Properly In Supreme Court as Opposed to the Court of Claims/Criteria for Inverse Condemnation of Property Explained (Not Met Here)

The Fourth Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined that an action against the state alleging recurrent flooding of plaintiffs’ property was properly in Supreme Court, despite the statutory requirement that claims against the state for monetary damages be brought in the Court of Claims. The Fourth Department held that the state did not demonstrate that the essential nature of the claim was to recover money. The Fourth Department further determined that the cause of action for inverse condemnation was properly dismissed, explaining the criteria:

Contrary to defendant’s contention, the court properly denied that part of its cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing all claims for money damages. Although defendant is correct that ” claims that are primarily against the State for damages must be brought in the Court of Claims, the Supreme Court may consider a claim for injunctive relief as long as the claim is not primarily for damages’ ” (… see Court of Claims Act § 9 [2]). “Whether the essential nature of the claim is to recover money, or whether the monetary relief is incidental to the primary claim, is dependent upon the facts and issues presented in a particular case” … . Here, defendant failed to establish in support of its cross motion that the essential nature of the causes of action for negligence, continuing nuisance, and continuing trespass is to recover money damages, and thus the court properly declined to grant summary judgment dismissing those causes of action.

We agree, however, with the further contention of defendant that the court erred in denying that part of its cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the cause of action for inverse condemnation, and we therefore modify the order accordingly. That cause of action alleged that the flooding intruded onto plaintiffs’ properties and interfered with their property rights to such an extent that it constituted “a constitutional taking requiring [defendant] to purchase the properties from plaintiffs.” It is well settled that such a “taking can consist of either a permanent ouster of the owner, or a permanent interference with the owner’s physical use, possession, and enjoyment of the property, by one having condemnation powers” … . “In order to constitute a permanent ouster, defendant[‘s] conduct must constitute a permanent physical occupation of plaintiff’s property amounting to exercise of dominion and control thereof’ ” … .

Here, defendant met its burden on its cross motion with respect to the cause of action for inverse condemnation by establishing as a matter of law that any interference with plaintiffs’ property rights was not sufficiently permanent to constitute a de facto taking … . Greece Ridge, LLC v State of New York, 2015 NY Slip Op 06072, 4th Dept 7-10-15

 

, ,

Parking Lot Not “Suitable” for Recreational Use Pursuant to General Obligations Law 9-103—Statutory Assumption of Risk Re: Riding a Bicycle in the Parking Lot Not Available

The Fourth Department determined Supreme Court properly denied defendant’s motion for leave to amend its answer to allege a “recreational use” affirmative defense. Plaintiff’s son was injured when his bicycle struck a depressed area in defendant’s parking lot. Defendant sought to allege plaintiff’s son assumed the risk of injury because the parking lot was covered by the recreational use statute, General Obligations Law 9-103. The Fourth Department, finding that the parking lot was not “suitable” for recreational use, explained the relevant analytical criteria:

We conclude that the court properly determined that defendant’s proposed amendment patently lacks merit inasmuch as the recreational use statute does not apply to the facts of this case as a matter of law. It is undisputed that plaintiff’s son was engaged in one of the recreational activities enumerated in section 9-103, i.e., bicycle riding, when he was injured. To establish applicability of the statute, however, defendant was also required to show that its property “was suitable for the recreational activity in which plaintiff[‘s son] was participating when the accident occurred” … . “Whether a parcel of land is suitable and the immunity [of the recreational use statute] available is a question of statutory interpretation, and is, therefore, a question of law for the Court” … . Suitability is established by showing that the subject property is ” (1) physically conducive to the activity at issue, and (2) of a type that is appropriate for public use in pursuing that activity as recreation’ ” … . “A substantial indicator that the property is physically conducive to the particular activity is whether recreationists have used the property for that activity in the past; such past use by participants in the [activity] manifests the fact that the property is physically conducive to it” … . Here, defendant failed to submit any evidence that the property had been used in the past by “recreationists” for bicycle riding. Moreover, under the circumstances of this case, we conclude that the subject property is not appropriate for public use in pursuing bicycle riding as a recreational activity … . Indeed, the Court of Appeals has made clear that recreational use immunity should apply only to property that “the Legislature would have envisioned as being opened up to the public for recreational activities” … . Here, defendant failed to establish that its employee parking lot comes within the purview of that standard. Sasso v WCA Hosp., 2015 NY Slip Op 06066, 4th Dept 7-10-15

 

, ,

Individual Condominium Owners Are Not Responsible for Conditions in the Common Elements of the Condominium, Which Are Under the Control of the Board of Managers—In a Case Stemming from a Slip and Fall in a Vestibule (a Common Element) the Individual Owners’ Motions for Summary Judgment Were Properly Granted

Plaintiff slipped and fell in a vestibule, one of the common elements of a condominium.  The common elements of a condominium are under the control of the board of managers, not the individual condominium owners.  Therefore the condominium owners’ motions for summary judgment were properly granted:

As a general rule, liability for a dangerous or defective condition on real property must be predicated upon ownership, occupancy, control, or special use of that property … . “[C]ondominium common elements are solely under the control of the board of managers” … . Here, the defendants, moving separately, each established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that as individual unit owners of the condominium, they had no duty to maintain the vestibule where the accident occurred, as it was one of the condominium’s common elements … . In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to, inter alia, whether the defendants created the alleged wet condition that caused the plaintiff to slip and fall … . O’Toole v Vollmer, 2015 NY Slip Op 05655, 2nd Dept 7-1-15

 

, ,

Property Was Not Transferred Until Escrow Conditions Were Met—Appellant Did Not Own the Building Where Plaintiff Slipped and Fell Because the Escrow Conditions Were Not Met and the Deed Was Not Released from Escrow Until the Day After the Slip and Fall

Reversing Supreme Court, the Second Department determined appellant did not own the property on the day plaintiff slipped and fell. The “preclosing” on the sale of the property to appellant took place on the day of the accident. But the deed was held in escrow until the escrow conditions were met on the day following the accident. Therefore the property was not transferred to the appellant until the day after the accident:

“When a deed is delivered to be held in escrow, the actual transfer of the property does not occur until the condition of the escrow is satisfied and the deed is subsequently delivered to the grantee by the escrow agent”… . Here, the appellant established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting proof that the actual transfer of the property to the appellant did not occur until the conditions of the escrow were satisfied and the deed was thereafter released by the escrow agent on [the day after the accident]. As a result, the appellant demonstrated that it did not own or otherwise control the subject property on the date of the plaintiff’s alleged accident … . Camac v 550 Realty Hgts., LLC, 2015 NY Slip Op 05631, 2nd Dept 7-1-15

 

,

Constructive Trust Properly Imposed—Sister, Who Was Not Included on the Original Deed Because of Credit Problems, Contributed One-Third of the Downpayment Based Upon a Promise She Would Be Added to the Deed at a Later Time

The Second Department determined a constructive trust was properly imposed on property for which the plaintiff provided one-third of the downpayment.  Plaintiff Reynida Diaz was not included on the original deed with her two sisters because of her credit history. There was an agreement among the sisters that Reynida would be added to the deed at a later time. Defendant sister refused to add Reynida to the deed. The court explained the requirements for a constructive trust:

In general, the imposition of a constructive trust is appropriate in situations when ” property has been acquired in such circumstances that the holder of the legal title may not in good conscience retain the beneficial interest'” … . The elements of a constructive trust are (1) a fiduciary or confidential relationship; (2) an express or implied promise; (3) a transfer in reliance on the promise; and (4) unjust enrichment … . A party must establish the elements of a constructive trust by clear and convincing evidence … .

There is no dispute that the first element, a confidential relationship, exists among the sisters …, a fact conceded by the defendant. As to the second element, the testimony of the two plaintiff sisters, the defendant, and a family friend, as well as the documentary evidence, established the existence of an express agreement among the parties at the time the subject property was purchased that Reynida Diaz would be added to the deed at some later date … . The plaintiffs also established the transfer in reliance element in that, at the time of the purchase of the subject property, Reynida Diaz had given the defendant $13,000, the same amount contributed by the defendant and the other plaintiff, in exchange for the promise of being added to the title as a co-owner at a later date … . The fourth element, that the defendant would be unjustly enriched if the constructive trust was not imposed, was also established in that the defendant had received the $13,000 from Reynida Diaz, as well as payments from her toward the monthly mortgage and maintenance of the property equal to the amounts contributed by the defendant and the other plaintiff who was on the deed to the subject property … . Diaz v Diaz, 2015 NY Slip Op 05635, 2nd Dept 7-1-15

 

 

 

, ,

City Had Not Impliedly Dedicated Certain Parcels of Land as Public Parklands—Therefore the Parcels, Which Had Been Used as Public Parks, Were Not Protected by the Public Trust Doctrine and Could Be Sold by the City Without the Approval of the State Legislature

The Court of Appeals determined certain city-owned parcels of land which had been used as public parkland had not been impliedly dedicated as public parklands.  Therefore the parcels were not under the protection of the public trust doctrine and could be sold by the city without the approval of the state legislature:

In support of their appeal, petitioners again advance their argument that the City’s actions manifest its intent to impliedly dedicate the parcels as parkland. Under the public trust doctrine, a land owner cannot alienate land that has been impliedly dedicated to a public use without obtaining the approval of the Legislature … . A party seeking to establish such an implied dedication and thereby successfully challenge the alienation of the land must show that: (1) “[t]he acts and declarations by the land owner indicating the intent to dedicate his land to the public use [are] unmistakable in their purpose and decisive in their character to have the effect of a dedication” and (2) that the public has accepted the land as dedicated to a public use … .

It remains an open question whether the second prong of the implied dedication doctrine applies to a municipal land owner, but we need not and do not resolve that issue on this appeal because we conclude that the City’s acts are not an unequivocal manifestation of an intent to dedicate the parcels as permanent parkland. With respect to the element of the owner’s intent — the only matter contested in this appeal — if a landowner’s acts are “equivocal, or do not clearly and plainly indicate the intention to permanently abandon the property to the use of the public, they are insufficient to establish a case of dedication” … . * * *

Here, as the Appellate Division noted, several documents created prior to this litigation demonstrate that the City did not manifest an unequivocal intent to dedicate the contested parcels for use as public parks. The permit, memorandum of understanding and lease/license relating to Mercer Playground, LaGuardia Park and LaGuardia Corners Gardens, respectively, show that “any management of the parcels by the [DPR] was understood to be temporary and provisional” … . Thus, those documents’ restrictive terms show that, although the City permitted and encouraged some use of these three parcels for recreational and park-like purposes, it had no intention of permanently giving up control of the property. And, as the Appellate Division observed, “the City’s “refus[al of] various requests to have the streets de-mapped and re-dedicated as parkland” … further indicates that the City has not unequivocally manifested an intent to dedicate the parcels as parkland. Matter of Glick v Harvey, 2015 NY Slip Op 05593, CtApp 6-30-15

 

, , , ,

“Extreme and Outrageous Conduct” Is Not an Element of “Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress”—Elements of Private Nuisance, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, and Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress Explained in Some Depth—Complaint Should Have Been Dismissed for Failure to State a Cause of Action

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Miller, reversed Supreme Court and dismissed the complaint for failure to state a cause of action.  The opinion is important because it clarified “negligent infliction of emotional distress,” explaining that “extreme and outrageous conduct” is not one of the elements. Although the court held that the complaint did not state causes of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, or private nuisance, the nature of those causes of action was explained in some depth. The defendants owned property next door to the plaintiffs’ home.  The defendants rented to tenants, who were not parties to the lawsuit.  The tenants apparently held loud parties at which drugs were used and sold. The plaintiffs at one point called the police to complain about the tenants’ behavior. Subsequently two masked men entered plaintiffs’ home to intimidate them. Plaintiff-husband ultimately shot the two intruders and in the process accidently shot his dog. The men were arrested by the police. The opinion is too detailed to properly summarize here, but the essence of the court’s ruling is that the tenants’ behavior was not sufficiently linked to any acts or omissions by the defendants. The court wrote:

The elements of a private nuisance cause of action are: “(1) an interference substantial in nature, (2) intentional in origin, (3) unreasonable in character, (4) with a person’s property right to use and enjoy land, (5) caused by another’s conduct in acting or failure to act” … . * * *  … [T]he duty to abate a private nuisance existing on real property arises from the power to possess the property and control the activities that occur on it. Accordingly, a landowner who has relinquished possession of his or her property will not be liable for a private nuisance that arises on the property if the landowner neither created the nuisance nor had notice of it at the time that possession of the property was transferred … . In the absence of any such knowledge or consent to the objectionable activity which may be attributable to the landowner at the time the lease is executed, the common-law duty to abate a nuisance that exists during the course of a tenancy lies with the tenant, in his or her capacity as the one in possession of the property … .

… [U]nder New York law, a cause of action alleging intentional infliction of emotion distress “has four elements: (i) extreme and outrageous conduct; (ii) intent to cause, or disregard of a substantial probability of causing, severe emotional distress; (iii) a causal connection between the conduct and injury; and (iv) severe emotional distress” … . * * * ” Liability has been found only where the conduct has been so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community'” … . * * * Although the individuals who broke into the plaintiffs’ home may have engaged in extreme and outrageous conduct, the complaint alleges no basis upon which the intruders’ conduct may be imputed to the defendants. The defendants’ intentional conduct, as alleged in the complaint, amounts to nothing more than a failure to ensure that their tenants and their friends refrained from committing the acts described in the complaint. * * *

[Re: negligent infliction of emotional distress] …. [T]o the extent that certain of this Court’s past decisions have indicated that extreme and outrageous conduct is an element of negligent infliction of emotional distress … , those cases should no longer be followed. … [A] breach of a duty of care “resulting directly in emotional harm is compensable even though no physical injury occurred” … . However, the mental injury must be “a direct, rather than a consequential, result of the breach” … , and the claim must possess “some guarantee of genuineness” … . … Applying the correct standard to the complaint in this case, we conclude that the plaintiffs’ failure to adequately allege extreme and outrageous conduct is not fatal to their cause of action alleging negligent infliction of emotional distress … . Nevertheless, we conclude that the complaint is deficient in another respect, as it failed to adequately allege facts that would establish that the mental injury was “a direct, rather than a consequential, result of the breach” … . Taggart v Costabile, 2015 NY Slip Op 05464, 2nd Dept 6-24-15

 

, ,

Contract Merged with the Deed and Any Rights Afforded Purchaser by the Uniform Vendor and Purchaser Risk Act Were Extinguished Upon Transfer of Title

After transfer of title, the purchaser alleged that the property had been damaged between the execution of the purchase contract and the transfer of title. The Third Department determined summary judgment was properly awarded the seller. The property was sold “as is” and the contract did not survive the transfer of title.  Any rights granted purchaser under the Uniform Vendor and Purchaser Risk Act (UVPRA), which allows for rescission in some cases, were extinguished upon the transfer of title:

Unless a land sale contract expressly provides otherwise, a vendor bears the risk of loss until legal title or possession has been transferred to the purchaser … . However, a contract for the sale of real property merges with the deed and, as a result, the terms of the contract do not survive transfer of title unless the parties clearly specify otherwise … . Here, the terms and conditions of the auction provided that the sale would be governed by the Uniform Vendor and Purchaser Risk Act (hereinafter UVPRA), which provides a purchaser with the right to rescind the sale contract or recover money paid toward the purchase price under certain circumstances (see General Obligations Law § 5-1311 [1] [a]). However, there was no indication that plaintiff’s rights under the UVPRA would survive transfer of title. In fact, the terms and conditions provided that the property would be sold “as is” and that a purchaser would not have recourse against defendant for any defects stemming from the sale. Therefore, any rights that plaintiff may have asserted under the UVPRA were extinguished when title was transferred to plaintiff. Burkins & Foley Trucking & Stor., Inc. v County of Albany, 2015 NY Slip Op 05252, 3rd Dept 6-18-15

 

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