You are here: / Real Property Law
,

Sellers Had No Duty to Disclose Recorded Easement—Caveat Emptor

In affirming Supreme Court’s ruling that the defendants had no duty to disclose a recorded easement to the buyers pursuant to the doctrine of caveat emptor, the Second Department wrote:

“New York adheres to the doctrine of caveat emptor and imposes no duty on the seller or the seller’s agent to disclose any information concerning the premises when the parties deal at arm’s length, unless there is some conduct on the part of the seller or the seller’s agent which constitutes active concealment” …. “Mere silence on the part of the seller, without some affirmative act of deception, is not actionable as fraud”…. ” To maintain a cause of action to recover damages for active concealment, the plaintiff must show, in effect, that the seller or the seller’s agents thwarted the plaintiff’s efforts to fulfill his responsibilities fixed by the doctrine of caveat emptor”…. “Where the facts represented are not matters peculiarly within the party’s knowledge, and the other party has the means available to him of knowing, by the exercise of ordinary intelligence, the truth or the real quality of the subject of the representation, he must make use of those means, or he will not be heard to complain that he was induced to enter into the transaction by misrepresentations”…. Schottland v Brown Harris Stevens Brooklyn, LLC, 2013 NY Slip Op 03982, 2nd Dept, 6-5-13

 

,

No Conversion Action for Real Property; No Conversion Action Where Money Transferred Pursuant to Agreement

In affirming the dismissal of a complaint in which it was alleged the purchase of a building was induced by misrepresentations, the First Department noted there can be no action for conversion of real property, and there can be no action for conversion of money which was transferred pursuant to an agreement:

The motion court properly dismissed plaintiff’s sixth cause of action alleging conversion. As it accurately noted, to the extent plaintiff based that cause of action on an alleged conversion of its 7% fee interest in the premises, the claim must fail because a party may not sustain a claim for conversion of real property …. Similarly, while a party can properly assert a claim for conversion of money …the $2 million cannot be the subject of a conversion claim here. Even accepting the truth of the allegations in the complaint, plaintiff does not allege that defendants wrongfully exercised dominion over those funds in derogation of plaintiff’s ownership … [conversion is the unauthorized assumption and exercise of the right of ownership over goods belonging to another to the exclusion of the owner’s rights][internal citations omitted]). On the contrary, by alleging that it agreed to, and did, transfer the funds in return for the 7% interest in the property, plaintiff tacitly concedes that possession of the money was authorized. B & C Realty, co v 159 Emmut Props LLC, 3013 NY Slip Op 03913, 1st Dept, 5-30-13

 

Fact Deed Not Recorded Did Not Rebut Presumption of Delivery and Acceptance of Deed​

In reversing Supreme Court, the Second Department determined the proof in this action to quiet title demonstrated that plaintiff’s decedent was the rightful owner of the subject property.  The Second Department noted the fact that the deed was not recorded did not overcome the presumption of delivery and acceptance of the deed:

Although the presumption of delivery and acceptance of a deed as of its date “must yield to opposing evidence…, here, no admissible evidence which would have overcome the presumption was presented in opposition to the evidence showing that the 1996 deed was executed in the presence of and delivered to the parties’ mutual attorney …. The fact that the deed was not recorded was not sufficient evidence to overcome the presumption of delivery of the deed to the attorney, the mutual agent of both parties, since recording is not required in order to transfer title to real property (see Real Property Law § 291). No evidence was presented that the delivery of the deed on the date of its execution was conditional.  Saline v Saline, 2012 NY Slip Op 03827, 2nd Dept, 5-29-13

 

,

Erroneous Boundary Line Agreement Presents Triable Issue of Fact Re: Liability of Title Insurance Company

In reversing Supreme Court, the Second Department determined there was a triable issue of fact about whether the defendant title insurance company was liable for a defect in title (boundary line agreement) which resulted in plaintiffs owning half the property they thought they were purchasing:

…Chicago Title established, prima facie, that the defect in title fell within exclusion 3(c) of the policy, which excludes from coverage defects “resulting in no loss or damage to the insured claimant.” Chicago Title presented an affidavit from a certified real estate appraiser opining that the plaintiffs have not sustained any loss in property value as a result of the boundary line agreement. Indeed, Chicago Title’s appraiser opined that the boundary line agreement resulted in a benefit to the plaintiffs and added significant value to their property due to the government’s maintenance and nourishment of the beach. In opposition, however, the plaintiffs raised a triable issue of fact as to whether they suffered a loss or damages as a result of the defect in title. The plaintiffs submitted an affidavit of their certified real estate appraiser, who opined that the total loss to the plaintiffs of all title to the portion of their purchased premises lying to the south of the 188-foot line constituted a measurable diminution in the value of the plaintiffs’ purchase. In light of these conflicting expert opinions, there is a triable issue of fact as to whether the plaintiffs sustained a loss or damages as a result of the defect in title …. Nastasi v County of Suffolk, 2013 NY Slip Op 03824, 2nd Dept, 5-29-13

 

​

,

Will Provisions Can Not Be “Re-Written” by Court Even If Intestacy Results

In determining Surrogate’s Court properly determined mortgages secured by notes represented personal property and not “interests in real property” within the meaning of the will, the Second Department wrote:

Here, as the Surrogate’s Court properly recognized, notes secured by mortgages are generally construed to be personal property…, and there is nothing in the language of the decedent’s will that manifests an intent to include the subject notes within the clause devising his “interests in real property” to the petitioner. The construction suggested by the petitioner cannot be accepted since the court should not rewrite a will or supply an omission not necessarily implied by the language used, even though intestacy with respect to a particular asset results … . Matter of Cincotta, 2013 NY Slip Op 03671, 2nd Dept, 5-22-13

 

Adverse Possession Not Demonstrated

In reversing the adverse-possession ruling in favor of the plaintiffs, because the proof showed only non-exclusive, sporadic and incomplete use of the land, the Third Department wrote:

…[W]e conclude that plaintiffs’ vague testimony did not establish by clear and convincing evidence that they ever cultivated and improved the entire .17 acre of the disputed area, or that they usually cultivated and improved even a small portion of the disputed area for the full 10-year requisite time period. That is, the minimal and sporadic use that was demonstrated is insufficient, as a matter of law, to constitute the requisite cultivation or improvement …. Further, in light of Powell’s testimony that he cared for the disputed area for defendants, plaintiffs cannot establish the “exclusivity” element, which requires a showing that “the adverse possessor . . . alone care[d] for or improve[d] the disputed property as if it were his/her own”….  Robbins v Schiff, 514749, 3rd Dept, 5-9-13

 

,

Public Access Easement to Recreation Area Granted; Public Hearing Not Required

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Stein, the Third Department upheld the grant of a petition pursuant to the Eminent Domain Procedure Law (EDPL) to acquire a public access easement over private land abutting a recreation area on land owned by a hydroelectric facility. The condemnation proceeding was triggered when the owner of the private property abutting the recreation area blocked roads which for years had provided public access to the recreation area. In a lengthy and detailed opinion, the Third Department explained the applicable procedures pursuant to the EDPL and why statutory exemptions to the public hearing requirement of the EDPL applied in this case.  In the Matter of Eagle Creek Land Resources, LLC, et al v Woodstone Lake Development, LLC, 514046, 3rd Dept, 5-9-13

 

, ,

Statute of Frauds Precluded Real Property-Related Action; Equitable Part Performance Doctrine Not Applicable

The Second Department determined the statute of frauds barred the real-property-related action and, since the action was brought “at law,” the equitable “part performance” doctrine could not be applied:

Here, the County established, prima facie, that there is no extant writing subscribed by the County or its agent referencing an alleged oral agreement involving real property, as described by the plaintiff (see General Obligations Law § 5-703[3];…). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. “Part performance by the party seeking to enforce [a] contract [for the sale of real property] may be sufficient in some circumstances to overcome the statute of frauds, but only in an action for specific performance” (…see General Obligations Law § 5-703[4];…). Since, here, the action is pleaded as one at law, and seeks only money damages, without any specific prayer for equitable relief, the plaintiff cannot rely on the doctrine of part performance to defeat the statute of frauds defense …. Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the County’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, based on the statute of frauds. Zito v County of Suffolk, 2013 NY Slip Op 03324, 2nd Dept, 5-8-13

 

, , ,

The Term “Release” (Re Hazardous Substances) Did Not Apply to Migration of Hazardous Substance to Neighbor’s Property Underground​

The Third Department determined there were two equally plausible interpretations of the term “sellers” as used in the contract, rendering the contract ambiguous.  Therefore, the motion to dismiss the complaint prior to discovery was properly denied. In addition, the Third Department determined that the term “release” (re: hazardous substances) did not extend to the migration of hazardous substances to neighboring properties under ground:

…[The provision] requires  indemnification  for environmental  claims  related  to, among other things, a “Release” of hazardous substances “at locations other than [500 Beech].” “Release”  is defined  to include  “any  spilling, leaking, pumping,  pouring,  emitting, emptying, discharging, injecting, dumping  or disposing of any Hazardous  Material  into  the  environment.” In its Canadian action, the neighbor alleged that contaminants – which would be classified as “Hazardous Materials” under the agreement – in the ground  at 500 Beech migrated into the soil and  groundwater at 606 Beech. There is no allegation that hazardous substances were spilled, leaked or otherwise disposed of directly onto the property at 606 Beech. Rather, the allegation is that the flow of underground water carried those substances from 500 Beech, where they had been spilled or leaked, to the neighboring property. Although the hazardous substances eventually wound up at 606 Beech, there is no support for an allegation that the “Release” of those substances occurred at a location other than 500 Beech. Vectron International, Inc, v Corning Oak Holding, Inc, 515408, 3rd Dept, 5-2-13

 

,

Elements of Constructive Trust Not Demonstrated 

The plaintiff had conveyed her 25% interest in real property to her cousin, allegedly with the understanding plaintiff would share in the proceeds if the property were sold. Eventually the cousin was deeded 100% of the property. The cousin lived on the property from 1989 to 2005.  The cousin deeded the property to her brother and his wife, the defendants. The defendants maintained the house and paid taxes on it, although they did not live there.  The plaintiff did not contribute to the property maintenance or taxes and did not submit any proof that the defendants had been unjustly enriched by owning the property (i.e. rental income). The Second Department upheld the referee in finding that the plaintiff had not proved the elements of a real-property constructive trust.  The Second Department explained the elements as follows:

“The elements of a constructive trust are a confidential or fiduciary relationship, a promise, a transfer in reliance thereon, and unjust enrichment… . These requirements, however, are not to be rigidly applied …. The ultimate purpose of a constructive trust is to prevent unjust enrichment, and it will be imposed ” [w]hen property has been acquired in such circumstances that the holder of the legal title may not in good conscience retain the beneficial interest'” ….  Broderson v Parsons, 2013 NY Slip Op 03050, 2nd Dept, 5-1-13

 

Categories

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

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

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