You are here: / Real Property Law
,

Attorney-in-Fact Used His Power to Create a Gift (by Deed) to Himself and/or Third Parties—Deed Declared Null and Void

The Fourth Department determined the deed purporting to transfer a life estate to the attorney-in-fact was null and void. Essentially, the attorney-in-fact used his power to make a gift to himself and/or third parties, which created an unrebutted presumption of impropriety:

It is well settled that “[a] power of attorney . . . is clearly given with the intent that the attorney-in-fact will utilize that power for the benefit of the principal” … . “The relationship of an attorney-in-fact to his principal is that of agent and principal . . . and, thus, the attorney-in-fact must act in the utmost good faith and undivided loyalty toward the principal, and must act in accordance with the highest principles of morality, fidelity, loyalty and fair dealing’ . . . Consistent with this duty, an agent may not make a gift to himself or a third party of the money or property which is the subject of the agency relationship” … . “In the event such a gift is made, there is created a presumption of impropriety [that can] be rebutted [only] with a clear showing that the principal intended to make the gift” …, or that the gift was in the principal’s best interest … . Borders v Borders, 2015 NY Slip Op 04022, 4th Dept 5-8-15

 

, , ,

Village’s Opting to Remove Petitioner’s Land from the Land Available for Purchase by New York City to Maintain the City’s Drinking-Water Watershed Was Not a Regulatory Taking

The Third Department determined the village had acted appropriately when it opted to exclude portions of land within the village from New York City’s watershed acquisition program.  Petitioner was attempting to sell an easement for her land to the City.  When the village opted to exclude petitioner’s land from the City’s acquisition program, the petitioner brought an action claiming the village had exceeded its authority by improperly restricting the ownership and transferability of her property. Petitioner further argued that the village’s action constituted a de facto regulatory taking of her property for which she was entitled to compensation:

Through voluntary agreement and accepting DEC [Department of Environmental Conservation] conditions, the City consented not to be a potential purchaser of some upstate property if the local municipalities opted to exclude the property from land acquisition by the City. This was part of a delicate balance designed to protect the watershed and save the City significant money while safeguarding the economic vitality of upstate communities … . It was not an improper attempt by a local municipality to regulate who owns or occupies property … , but, in essence, the withdrawal of one potential purchaser who received a significant benefit. * * *

Where, as here, “the contested [resolution] falls short of eliminating all economically viable uses of the encumbered property, the Court looks to several factors to determine whether a taking occurred, including ‘the [resolution’s] economic effect on the landowner, the extent to which the [resolution] interferes with reasonable investment-backed expectations, and the character of the government action'” … . The resolution’s result was that one potential purchaser — who had not made any offer during the years when an easement on petitioner’s farm could have been purchased — no longer remained a potential purchaser. Petitioner has since found another willing purchaser. The resolution did not hinder the use that was being made of the property as a farming operation. The purpose of the resolution was to protect the Town’s potential for growth and economic sustainability, which was one of the many goals of the various parties involved … and consistent with an overriding purpose of maintaining a safe, ample and relatively inexpensive drinking water supply for the City. Petitioner “did not meet [her] heavy burden of showing that the [resolution] resulted in a regulatory taking”… .  Matter of Nelson v City of New York, 2014 NY Slip Op 03319, 3rd Dept 5-8-14

 

, ,

Former Parishioners Did Not Have Standing to Challenge Sale of Church Property Which Had Been Authorized by Supreme Court Pursuant to the Religious Corporation Law

The Third Department determined former parishioners of a church should not have brought an action for declaratory judgment contesting the church’s (court-ordered) authorization to sell church property pursuant to the Religious Corporation Law.  The proper procedure would have been to bring a motion to intervene pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a).  The  court went on to determine that the parishioners did not have standing to challenge the sale because they were not members of the religious corporation:

Plaintiffs’ action was an impermissible collateral attack on the authorization order. The proper procedure would have been to move to vacate that order pursuant to CPLR 5015, which permits “any interested person” to move for such relief (CPLR 5015 [a]), rather than commencing a second plenary action collaterally attacking an order in a prior action … . …

Additionally, Supreme Court properly dismissed the complaint because plaintiffs lack standing to challenge the sale of the property. Plaintiffs may have been members of the congregation or “ecclesiastical body” of St. Patrick’s, but that does not make them members of the religious corporation … . “Member” is defined for religious corporation purposes as “one having membership rights in a corporation in accordance with the provisions of its certificate of incorporation or by-laws” (N-PCL 102 [a] [9]; see Religious Corporations Law § 2-b [1]). Pursuant to the incorporation documents and bylaws of St. Patrick’s and the relevant statutes, St. Patrick’s is managed by a five-member board of trustees consisting of the diocesan bishop, the vicar general of the diocese, the rector of the church and two laypersons selected by the other trustees (see Religious Corporations Law §§ 90, 91)[FN3]. Religious Corporations Law § 5 “vests the custody and control of a religious corporation’s [*3]real property in the board of trustees” … . As plaintiffs are not members of the religious corporation, they lack standing to challenge decisions concerning the transfer of the corporation’s property … . Citizens for St Patrick’s v Saint Patrick’s Church of W Troy, 2014 NY Slip Op 03314, 3rd Dept 5-8-14

 

,

“Agreement to Agree” Insufficient to Sever a Joint Tenancy

The Third Department noted that a joint tenancy with right of survivorship can be severed by written agreement, but determined the email correspondence, which evinced the parties’ intent to sever the joint tenancy, did not accomplish the severance because material terms, including price, were not addressed: “Real Property Law § 240-c (3) (a) allows for the severance of a joint tenancy “pursuant to a written agreement of all joint tenants.” However, “a contract must be definite in its material terms in order to be enforceable” … . For this reason, an agreement to agree, where such terms are left to future negotiations, is unenforceable …”. Matter of Wyman (Riddle), 2015 NY Slip Op 03908, 3rd Dept 5-7-15

 

Co-Tenant Acquired Entire Parcel by Adverse Possession

The Second Department determined a co-tenant of land owned by tenants in common had adversely possessed the entire parcel for the required 20-year period.  The court explained the applicable legal principles:

“Adverse possession must be proven by clear and convincing evidence” … . “To establish a claim of adverse possession, the following five elements must be proved: Possession must be (1) hostile and under claim of right; (2) actual; (3) open and notorious; (4) exclusive; and (5) continuous for the required period” … . ” [A]n inference of hostile possession or a claim of right will be drawn [where] the other elements of adverse possession are established, unless, prior to the vesting of title, the party in possession has admitted that title belongs to another'” … . Moreover, under the law existing at the time title allegedly vested here, in the absence of an overt acknowledgment during the statutory period that ownership rested with another party, actual knowledge of the true owner, or co-owner as is the case here, did not destroy the element of claim of right … . “Where, as here, the party claiming adverse possession is a tenant-in-common in exclusive possession, the statutory period required by RPAPL 541 is 20 years of continuous exclusive possession before a cotenant may acquire full title by adverse possession” … . Galli v Galli, 2014 NY Slip Op 03231, 2nd Dept 5-7-14

 

,

Owner of Land through Which Power Lines Pass Pursuant to a Utility Easement (Servient Owner) Does Not Have a Duty to Maintain the Easement—Servient Owner Not Liable for Damage to Abutting Property Stemming from a Vegetation Fire Started by Sparks from the Power Lines

The Second Department determined the easement which allowed the power company’s lines to pass through the owner’s property did not impose a duty to maintain the easement on property owner.  Vegetation around the power lines caught fire causing damage to an abutting landowner’s property. The plaintiff insurer paid the claim and sued the owner of the land through which the power lines passed (the servient owner). The Second Department explained that “a servient owner has no duty to maintain an easement to which its property is subject. Indeed, a servient owner has a passive duty to refrain from interfering with the rights of the dominant owner” … .  Encompass Ins. Co. of Am. v Long Is. Power Auth., 2015 NY Slip Op 03800, 2nd Dept 5-6-15

 

,

Emergency Power to Demolish a Building Properly Exercised

The Second Department determined the city properly exercised its emergency power to demolish plaintiff’s building due to exigent circumstances:

“A municipality may demolish a building without providing notice and an opportunity to be heard if there are exigent circumstances which require immediate demolition of the building to protect the public from imminent danger” … . “[W]here there is competent evidence allowing the official to reasonably believe that an emergency does in fact exist, or that affording pre-deprivation process would be otherwise impractical, the discretionary invocation of an emergency procedure results in a constitutional violation only where such invocation is arbitrary or amounts to an abuse of discretion” … . Here, contrary to the defendant’s contention, there exists a valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences by which the jury could have rationally concluded that the defendant’s determination that immediate demolition of the building was required in order to protect the public from imminent danger was arbitrary … . Rapps v City of New York, 2015 NY Slip Op 02743, 2nd Dept 4-1-15

 

, , ,

Statutes of Limitations for Actions Stemming from the Alleged Fraudulent Transfer of Real Property Explained

The Second Department determined plaintiff’s actions, which stemmed from the allegation defendant had acquired a deed to his property by fraud, were timely. The court explained the statutes of limitations for actual and constructive fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, actions to quiet title, conversion by fraud, money had and received, and constructive trust. In essence, actions which have an equitable component are governed by a six-year statute of limitations:

The statute of limitations for a cause of action alleging a breach of fiduciary duty does not begin to run until the fiduciary has openly repudiated his or her obligation or the relationship has been otherwise terminated … . * * *

The statute of limitations for a cause of action sounding in breach of fiduciary duty is dependent on the relief sought. The Court of Appeals ruled in IDT Corp. v Morgan Stanley Deal Witter & Co. (12 NY3d at 139):

“New York law does not provide a single statute of limitations for breach of fiduciary duty claims. Rather, the choice of the applicable limitations period depends on the substantive remedy that the plaintiff seeks. Where the remedy sought is purely monetary in nature, courts construe the suit as alleging injury to property’ within the meaning of CPLR 214(4), which has a three-year limitations period. Where, however, the relief sought is equitable in nature, the six-year limitations period of CPLR 213(1) applies. Moreover, where an allegation of fraud is essential to a breach of fiduciary duty claim, courts have applied a six-year statute of limitations under CPLR 213(8)” (citations omitted).

Since the plaintiff’s right to the subject property is in issue, awarding damages would not be adequate. Therefore, the six-year statute of limitations for causes of action sounding in equity should be applied … . Since the second and third causes of action accrued in 2006, when the defendants allegedly acted contrary to their fiduciary obligations, to the plaintiff’s detriment, those causes of action, interposed four years later in 2010, are not time-barred.

The first cause of action, to quiet title pursuant to RPAPL article 15, is not time-barred, since the plaintiff was seized or possessed of the premises within 10 years before the commencement of the action and is in essence seeking a determination that the quitclaim deed which he executed in 2003 was part of a mortgage transaction, and not a conveyance of title (see CPLR 212[a]; Real Property Law § 320…).

The fourth cause of action, alleging conversion based upon fraud, is not time-barred, since it is governed by the statute of limitations set forth in CPLR 213(8) … .

The fifth cause of action, seeking damages for money had and received …, is equitable in nature and, therefore, the applicable statute of limitations is six years … . Since the defendants’ receipt of money occurred in 2006, and the action was commenced in 2010, the cause of action is not time-barred. Similarly, the sixth cause of action, sounding in unjust enrichment, is equitable in nature, and is not time-barred … .

The seventh cause of action alleging a constructive trust is equitable in nature and governed by a six-year statute of limitations … . The elements of a cause of action to impose a constructive trust are (1) a confidential or fiduciary relationship, (2) a promise, (3) a transfer in reliance thereon, and (4) unjust enrichment … . The cause of action accrued on the date of the “wrongful transfer” of the subject property … . Loeuis v Grushin. 2015 NY Slip Op 01926, 2nd Dept 3-11-15

 

 

 

Agreement Created Only a Temporary License to Use Land, Not an Easement

The Third Department, over a partial dissent, determined plaintiff was granted only a license to use land for agricultural purposes pending repayment of a loan, not an easement.  The two legal concepts were explained:

We recognize that “‘it is often difficult to distinguish between an easement, which is an interest in real property, and a mere license, which implies no such interest, . . . is personal to the holder, is not assignable and is of limited duration'” … . “‘To create an easement by express grant there must be a writing containing plain and direct language evincing the grantor’s intent to create a right in the nature of an easement rather than a revocable license'” … . Aside from the word “grant,” the agreement does not use language typically utilized to convey an interest in land, such as “convey” and “forever” … . Moreover, the agreement expressly speaks to a loan and includes a clause purporting to authorize plaintiff to foreclose upon the property for nonpayment. Where, as here, there is no express time limitation for the right to use the property, that right should be deemed a license, and not an easement …, particularly given that plaintiff drafted the agreement (see 22 NY Jur 2d, Contracts § 257). Both the language of the agreement and the loan context lead us to conclude, as did Supreme Court, that Buchanan merely conferred a license upon plaintiff to use the property pending repayment. Kampfer v DaCorsi, 2015 NY Slip Op 01843, 3rd Dept 3-5-15

 

, , ,

Testing and Monitoring Costs Associated with Remediation of a Petroleum Spill Are Taxable/Deference Is Accorded an Agency’s Interpretation of a Broadly-Worded Statute

The Third Department determined that the costs of monitoring and testing done as part of a remediation effort at the site of a petroleum spill are taxable pursuant to Tax Law 1105(c)(5).  The Third Department explained the courts’ review powers where an agency has interpreted a statute that is broadly worded:

Tax Law § 1105 (c) (5) imposes a sales tax on purchases of services related to “[m]aintaining, servicing or repairing real property, property or land . . . as distinguished from adding to or improving such real property, property or land, by a capital improvement.” 20 NYCRR 527.7 (a) (1) further defines “[m]aintaining, servicing and repairing” as “all activities that relate to keeping real property in a condition of fitness, efficiency, readiness or safety or restoring it to such condition.” Petitioner [Exxon Mobil] asserts that the monitoring and testing services paid for here were not taxable, as they were only intended to ascertain the condition of the affected property and not to remediate the petroleum spills. We disagree.

Under well-established principles of law, “an agency’s interpretation of the statutes it administers must be upheld absent demonstrated irrationality or unreasonableness” … . Petitioner points out that no deference will generally be afforded to administrative agencies in matters of pure statutory interpretation … . Inasmuch as the present case involves the specific application of broad statutory language, however, deference to the agency that is charged with administering the statute is appropriate … . Contrary to petitioner’s further assertion, the burden rested upon it to establish that the specific sales at issue here were not taxable (see Tax Law § 1132 [c] [1]…).

As this Court and the Court of Appeals have “noted, both the statute and regulation contain broad language” … . The removal of hazardous waste from a property constitutes a taxable maintenance service and, indeed, petitioner does not dispute that a purchase of services related to the remediation of spilled petroleum is taxable … . Petitioner claims that the services at issue here are not related to the improvement of property affected by a petroleum spill, but that claim is not borne out by the record. Petroleum discharges are prohibited in New York and, when a spill occurs, petitioner is obliged to notify the Department of Environmental Conservation and may coordinate with that Department to remediate the spill (see Navigation Law §§ 173, 175, 176 [7]). Petitioner is required to conduct an environmental investigation of the spill area, including the monitoring and testing services at issue here, as part of its remediation effort. While an active cleanup of a spill site is not required in every case, the same monitoring and testing procedures are always employed, and it may take years for those procedures to reveal what type of remediation is required. Moreover, if active remediation is conducted, further monitoring and testing is required to ensure that the remedial system may be safely removed. Under these circumstances, there was nothing irrational in the finding that the monitoring and testing services at issue constituted an “integral part of the” taxable remediation efforts, even if they were billed separately … .  Matter of Exxon Mobil Corp. v State of New York Tax Appeals Trib.. 2015 NY Slip Op 01840, 3rd Dept 3-5-15

 

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