You are here: / Real Property Law
,

Contract Giving Plaintiff Option to Sell the Property Back to the Defendants If Rezoning Not Obtained Was Ambiguous About When the Option Must Be Exercised Raising a Question of Fact About the Timeliness of Plaintiff’s Exercise of the Option

The Second Department determined the contract rider which allowed plaintiff-purchaser to sell the property back to the defendants-sellers if rezoning and subdivision approvals were not obtained within 15 months was an option contract.  The defendants argued that the option must be exercised within a reasonable time and the plaintiff’s failure to do so entitled defendants to summary judgment.  Supreme Court disagreed and granted plaintiff summary judgment (specific performance). The Second Department found that the contract was ambiguous concerning the time within which the option must be exercised, raising a triable question of fact:

An option contract is an agreement to hold an offer open; it confers upon the optionee, for consideration paid, the right to purchase–—or, less commonly, to sell –at a later date … . Whether an agreement is an option contract or a bilateral contract is determined by reference to its various terms … .

Here, as the defendants correctly contend, section 8(a) of the rider to the subject contract giving the plaintiff the right to sell the property back to [the defendants if plaintiff] failed to obtain certain rezoning and subdivision approvals was an option contract, as it conferred upon the plaintiff the right to sell the property back to Fairview at a later date.

However, in order for there to be an enforceable contract for the sale of land upon which an action for specific performance can be based, an optionee must exercise an option in accordance with its terms, within the time and the manner specified in the option … .

Here, the plaintiff interprets the option contained in section 8(a) of the rider as providing it with an open-ended right to exercise same, and the Supreme Court agreed. The defendants, however, interpret the same provision as limiting the plaintiff’s time to exercise the option to “a reasonable time” after the expiration of the aforementioned 15-month period in which to obtain the specified rezoning and subdivision approvals, and contend that the plaintiff failed to timely exercise its rights.

“Contract language which is clear and unambiguous must be enforced according to its terms” … . However, ambiguity in a written agreement exists if there is more than one reasonable interpretation of the language at issue … . The test for determining whether contract language is ambiguous is “whether the agreement on its face is reasonably susceptible of more than one interpretation” … . Whether an agreement is ambiguous is a question of law to be resolved by the court … . Here, we conclude that section 8(a) of the rider is ambiguous and subject to more than one interpretation regarding the time within which the plaintiff had to exercise the option. Since a triable issue of fact exists as to the intention of the parties, the Supreme Court erred in granting the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the cause of action for specific performance … . IPE Asset Mgt LLC v Fairview Block & Supply Corp, 2014 NY Slip Op 08811, 2nd Dept 12-17-14

 

,

Leased Right-of-Way Was an Easement Appurtenant Which Can Only Be Extinguished by Abandonment, Conveyance, Condemnation or Adverse Possession

The Third Department determined a preliminary injunction was properly granted in an action alleging defendant’s interference with plaintiff’s leased right-of-way:

Plaintiff owns an industrial building with deeded easements located within defendant’s industrial park in the City of Schenectady, Schenectady County. Plaintiff also leases from defendant an adjoining parcel with a general right of ingress and egress. Plaintiff commenced this action seeking a declaration that its leased right-of-way entitles it to a general right of passage of commercial vehicles in connection with its heavy steel fabrication business operated on the premises. Plaintiff also seeks a permanent injunction prohibiting defendant from interfering with plaintiff’s use of the general right-of-way and compelling defendant to remove certain obstructions to its right of passage. * * *

Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion by concluding that defendant was unlikely to succeed on its claim that the metes and bounds easement conveyed to plaintiff when it purchased the building from defendant’s predecessor limits and restricts the general right of ingress and egress granted in the lease that was entered into at the same time with that same predecessor. The general right-of-way in the lease is an easement appurtenant that “may be extinguished only by abandonment, conveyance, condemnation or adverse possession” … . Inasmuch as there is no evidence that the general right-of-way was abandoned, conveyed, condemned or adversely possessed, it continues to exist, notwithstanding any easement provided for in connection with the separate conveyance of the building to plaintiff … .

Given that plaintiff has a general right of ingress and egress, defendant may only alter the passageway “so long as [plaintiff’s] right of passage is not impaired” … . Plaintiff presented photographs and an affidavit from its president establishing that defendant’s placement of steel poles along the easement’s boundaries and a locked gate at one of the entrances restricted plaintiff’s ingress and egress, thereby showing a likelihood of success on the merits of its action … . STS Steel Inc v Maxon Alco Holdings LLC, 2014 NY Slip OP 08694, 3rd Dept 12-11-14

 

, , , , ,

Purchase of Property Encumbered by an Unsatisfied Mortgage Gave Rise to Negligence, Negligent Misrepresentation, Fraud, and Civil Conspiracy Causes of Action Against Title Insurance Company

Third-party plaintiff, Drummond, purchased property that was encumbered by an unsatisfied mortgage held by plaintiff bank. Drummond sued the title company, third-party defendant New York Land, as well as the company from which she procured her mortgage, Residential, and the bank to which the mortgage was transferred, Wells Fargo.  The third-party defendants brought CPLR 3211 motions to dismiss. The Second Department determined the causes of action against New York Land for negligence and negligent misrepresentation properly survived a motion to dismiss because the relationship between Drummond and New York Title was “so close as to approach privity,” but no such relationship was demonstrated with Residential and Wells Fargo.  The Second Department further determined the fraud and civil conspiracy causes of action against New York Land should not have been dismissed, explaining the pleading requirements. In addition, the Second Department determined that the suit was not “consumer-related” and therefore the General Business Law 349 cause of action was properly dismissed:

Although there was no contract between Drummond and New York Land, affording the pleadings a liberal construction and accepting all facts alleged as true …, the third-party complaint supports Drummond’s contention that the relationship between these two parties was so close as to approach privity .. . Indeed, the pleading alleges that New York Land was aware that the abstract and title report that it prepared were to be used for the specific purpose of facilitating a sale or mortgage of the property, that New York Land knew that Drummond was a member of a definable class who would rely on the certification in furtherance of that purpose, and that there was conduct between New York Land and Drummond evincing New York Land’s understanding of Drummond’s reliance … . Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied those branches of New York Land’s motion which were to dismiss, for failure to state a cause of action, the third-party causes of action alleging negligence and negligent misrepresentation insofar as asserted against it. * * *

“The elements of a cause of action sounding in fraud are a material misrepresentation of an existing fact, made with knowledge of the falsity, an intent to induce reliance thereon, justifiable reliance upon the misrepresentation, and damages” … . “All of the elements of a fraud claim must be supported by factual allegations containing the details constituting the wrong’ in order to satisfy the pleading requirements of CPLR 3016(b)” … . In certain circumstances, however, it may be “almost impossible to state in detail the circumstances constituting a fraud where those circumstances are peculiarly within the knowledge of [an adverse] party” … . “Under such circumstances, the heightened pleading requirements of CPLR 3016(b) may be met when the material facts alleged in the complaint, in light of the surrounding circumstances, are sufficient to permit a reasonable inference of the alleged conduct’ including the adverse party’s knowledge of, or participation in, the fraudulent scheme” … . Here, accepting all facts alleged as true … , the third-party complaint contains sufficient allegations of fact from which it can be inferred that New York Land was aware of the alleged fraudulent scheme and intended to aid in the commission thereof … . * * *

“Although New York does not recognize civil conspiracy to commit a tort . . . as an independent cause of action, a plaintiff may plead the existence of a conspiracy in order to connect the actions of the individual defendants with an actionable, underlying tort and establish that those actions were part of a common scheme” … . Again, affording the third-party complaint a liberal construction, Drummond alleged sufficient facts from which it may be inferred that New York Land knowingly participated, with certain other third-party defendants, in the alleged fraudulent scheme … . * * *

General Business Law § 349 is a broad consumer protection statute, which declares “deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any business, trade or commerce” to be unlawful (General Business Law § 349[a]…). A party claiming the benefit of General Business Law § 349 must, as a threshold matter, ” charge conduct that is consumer oriented'” … . “The single shot transaction, which is tailored to meet the purchaser’s wishes and requirements, does not, without more, constitute consumer-oriented conduct for the purposes of this statute” … . Rather, the defendant’s acts or practices “must have a broad impact on consumers at large” … . Here, Drummond’s General Business Law § 349 cause of action is predicated upon allegations that the third-party defendants fraudulently induced her to purchase the subject property and finance it with a mortgage loan from [Residential]. As the Supreme Court properly concluded, these factual allegations do not amount to conduct that has an impact on the public at large and, as such, do not state a cause of action for violation of General Business Law § 349 … . JP Morgan Chase Bank NA v Hall, 2014 NY Slip Op 07475, 2nd Dept 11-5-14

 

,

Encroaching Structure Built to Prevent Excavation-Related Damage to Adjoining Property Is a Trespass

The First Department determined the fact that a property owner [Madison] is strictly liable for damage to an adjoining property [17 East] caused by excavation did not allow the construction of encroaching structures to prevent excavation-related damage to the adjoining property:

The imposition of absolute liability on parties whose excavation work damages an adjoining property places the burden of protecting adjoining property onto those undertaking the excavation work, and the risks thereof, rather than those whose interest in adjoining property is harmed by the work … . It should not be inferred, however, that the transfer of risk to the owner/excavator carries with it a corresponding unfettered right to excavate more than 10 feet below curb level, or that the adjoining property owner must allow underpinning of its property simply because the neighboring property owner undertaking such excavation bears absolute liability for any damage it may cause to the adjoining property … . * * *

Madison did not have the right, in the absence of an agreement with 17 East Owners, to erect permanent structures extending beyond the property line, either above or below the surface, and thus encroaching on 17 East Owners’ property.  Madison 96th Assoc LLC v 17 E 96th Owners Corp, 2014 NY Slip Op 07422, 1st Dept 10-30-14

 

,

Land Owner Entitled to “Rental-Value” Compensation for Area Encompassed by Temporary Easement for Roadway Widening Project, Not “Rental-Value” Compensation for the Entire Parcel

The Second Department affirmed the Court of Claims ruling that a temporary easement along the roadway taken by the state during a road-widening project did not affect the entire parcel.  Therefore the proper measure of compensation was the rental value of the area encompassed by the easement, not the rental value of the whole:

Generally speaking, a claimant is entitled to compensation for any loss suffered as a result of the taking of a temporary easement … . There is, however, no recovery where there is no loss … . Indeed, ” compensation need not be paid for the State’s taking of a temporary easement when there is no actual interference with the property owner’s use of his [or her] property'” … .

Where a taking of a temporary easement encumbers a parcel’s entire highway frontage, as in the instant case, the measure of damages is “the rental value of the land encompassed within the temporary easement for so long as the easement is in effect plus, as consequential damages, the rental value of the parcel’s unencumbered interior acreage for any period of time when highway access was not possible by virtue of the easement’s use” … . A condemnee is entitled to consequential damages comprising the rental value of the parcel’s unencumbered interior acreage for the easement’s duration only if the condemnor does not meet its burden of proving the duration of the “interval of actual obstruction,” or if the condemnee establishes that the “mere existence” of the temporary easement interfered with highest and best use of the property “in more than a conjectural sense” … . Ronmar Realty Inc v State of New York, 2014 NY Slip Op 07343, 2nd Dept 10-29-15

 

,

Order Re: an Easement Allowing Plaintiffs Access to a Lake Was Specific Enough to Support Finding the Defendants in Civil Contempt (for Violation of the Order)—Willfulness Is Not an Element of Civil Contempt—Mere Act of Disobedience Is Enough

The Third Department determined the defendants were properly found to be in contempt of an order concerning plaintiffs’ easement for access to a lake.  The court explained that the order was specific enough to justify the contempt finding and further explained that willfulness is not an element of civil contempt:

…[D]efendants thus contend that they were not prohibited from partially fencing the passageway or placing other property on it, provided that plaintiffs’ reasonable right of passage was not impaired … . However, the rule relied upon by defendants applies to rights-of-way that are not specifically defined or bounded by the language of the grant … . Here, the 2010 order determined that the deeds granted plaintiffs a defined 60-foot-wide easement and right-of-way consisting of the passageway, and that plaintiffs further possessed rights to construct, maintain and use a dock … . The 2010 order also expressly directed defendants to keep the passageway “free of all brush and tall grasses, junk boats, debris, and other personal property” that interfered or could interfere with plaintiffs’ rights, and to maintain the passageway in an unobstructed fashion. Defendants raised no factual challenge to plaintiffs’ claim that the fencing was partially obstructing the passageway, that they had permitted tall grass and brush to grow, and that they had allowed the accumulation of personal property and debris upon the passageway. Accordingly, Supreme Court correctly found that they violated a clear and unequivocal mandate in these respects … .

Although the 2010 order did not specify the precise location where plaintiffs were to construct their dock, it did direct defendants not to interfere with plaintiffs’ right to construct and use a dock “within the northerly extensions” of the passageway. Plaintiffs submitted a survey map and other evidence demonstrating that defendants had placed their dock in the center of the passageway in such a manner that insufficient space was left in the northerly end for plaintiffs to position or use a dock without infringing on the rights of a neighboring landowner. * * *

We reject defendants’ claim that the contempt finding was improper in that they allegedly believed their actions were justified and, thus, were not willfully disobedient. No finding of willfulness or deliberate disregard is required to sustain a civil contempt determination; “the mere act of disobedience, regardless of motive, is sufficient . . . if such disobedience defeats, impairs, impedes or prejudices the rights of a party”… . Hush v Taylor, 2014 NY Slip Op 07231, 3rd Dept 10-23-14

 

,

Title Insurance Company Insures Only Whether a Property Has Legal Access to a Street, Not Whether Physical Access to the Street Is Possible

The Second Department determined that the action against a title insurance company was properly dismissed.  The insured property abutted a street.  However, a retaining wall on the property blocked access to the street.  When a problem developed with respect to removing the retaining wall, the property owners sued the title insurance company.  The Second Department held that the title insurance company was only obligated to determine whether the property had  “legal access” to a street, not “physical access:”

The title insurance policies … insure against “[l]ack of a right of access to and from the land.” “[S]uch a provision refers to the absence of a legal right to access and does not cover claims concerning lack of an existing means of physical access” … . On its motion for summary judgment, Stewart established that [plaintiffs] have a legal right of access because the subject property abuts a public street … . 43 Park Owners Group LLC v Commonwealth Land Tit Ins Co, 2014 NY Slip Op 07120, 2nd Dept 10-22-14

 

Doctrine of “Practical Location” (to Determine Boundary Line) Explained

In affirming Supreme Court’s determination of the location of a boundary line, the Third Department explained the doctrine of “practical location” which is used when the description of the land in deeds is inadequate:

As a general proposition, “[d]eeds and surveys indicate boundary lines by various descriptive elements or ‘calls’ which consist mainly of monuments, courses and distances, adjacent lands and area or quantity” … . Here, however, … our review confirms — that the subject deeds contain no specific bearings or directional calls and set forth only the vaguest description of the intended boundary line between the land originally conveyed to plaintiff and Laight. Indeed, [a surveyor] opined that the deeds in question were “so bad” that a boundary line could not be established absent either a boundary line agreement, which the parties apparently were unable to forge, or judicial intervention … . To that end, where a dispute exists as to the location of a boundary line, “the intent of the parties existing at the time of the original conveyance of the disputed property controls” … . Pursuant to the doctrine of practical location, “the practical location of a boundary line and an acquiescence of the parties therein for a period of more than [the statutory period governing adverse possession] is conclusive of the location of the boundary line” … . “[A]pplication of the doctrine requires a clear demarcation of a boundary line and proof that there is mutual acquiescence to the boundary by the parties such that it is definitely and equally known, understood and settled” … . Gibbs v Porath, 2014 NY Slip Op 07030, 3rd Dept 10-16-14

In another case, the Third Department found the “practical location” doctrine inapplicable.  Kennedy v Nimons, 2014 NY Slip Op 07036, 3rd Dept 10-16-14

 

Ignorance of Adverse Possessors’ Use of the Land Is Not a Defense/Criteria Explained

In affirming that defendants had demonstrated they met the criteria for adverse possession, the court noted that plaintiff’s claim that she did not know the defendants were occupying the land and did not know where the boundary was did not constitute a defense to adverse possession:

“To establish a claim of adverse possession, the occupation of the property must be (1) hostile and under a claim of right (i.e., a reasonable basis for the belief that the subject property belongs to a particular party), (2) actual, (3) open and notorious, (4) exclusive, and (5) continuous for the statutory period (at least 10 years)” … . “In addition, where, as here, the claim of right is not founded upon a written instrument, the party asserting title by adverse possession must establish that the land was usually cultivated or improved’ or protected by a substantial inclosure’ ” … . “The type of cultivation or improvement sufficient under the statute will vary with the character, condition, location and potential uses for the property . . . and need only be consistent with the nature of the property so as to indicate exclusive ownership” … . Reardon v Broadwell, 2014 NY Slip Op 06718, 4th Dept 10-3-14

 

, ,

Insufficient Proof of an Agreement to Assume a Mortgage at the Time Deed Transferred

The Second Department determined that the writings were insufficient to demonstrate the grantee agreed to assume a mortgage at the time the deed was transferred:

General Obligations Law § 5-705 provides, in relevant part, that “[n]o grantee of real property shall be liable upon any indebtedness secured by a mortgage” unless, “simultaneously with the conveyance,” the grantee executes a writing before a notary agreeing to assume and pay the mortgage debt. Here, it is clear from the allegations in the complaint and attached exhibits that the defendants did not execute a notarized written agreement to assume the mortgage allegedly held by the plaintiff at the time the properties were conveyed … . Thus, General Obligations Law § 5-705 bars the plaintiff from recovering on the theory that the defendants agreed to assume his existing mortgage on the properties as alleged in the complaint. Furthermore, [recovery] is also barred by the statute of frauds because an agreement to answer for the debt of another must be in writing (see General Obligations Law § 5-701[a][2]). Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the various writings attached to the complaint, taken together, were insufficient to memorialize the existence of an agreement … . Dahan v Weiss, 2014 NY Slip Op 05767, 2nd Dept 8-13-14

 

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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy