New York Real Estate Lawyers

And The Foreclosure Hits Keep On Coming

CoopAndCondoLaw — Fri, 20 Jan 2012 14:23:17 +0000

Federal National Mortgage (FNM) began an eviction proceeding against a couple who occupied their apartment after FNM obtained the deed to the apartment through a foreclosure sale. The, now, tenants of the apartment argued that FNM could not maintain the eviction proceeding since FNM was not the proper assignee to the underlying mortgage for the apartment. The Court held, as reported in the NY Law Journal, that FNM did not provide sufficient evidence that it was properly assigned the underlying mortgage prior to or during the foreclosure action. The Court stayed the eviction proceeding to afford the occupants of the apartment an opportunity to return to the Supreme Court and have their concerns regarding the improper assignment addressed by the Court. Lenders continue to face tough opposition in the New York Court system where, it is longer assumed that the banks acted properly when executing and/or foreclosing upon a mortgage.

If You Touch My Property, You Will Pay.

CoopAndCondoLaw — Thu, 12 Jan 2012 21:57:08 +0000

Eminent Domain has been around and used by municipalities dating back to feudal England. The primary reason for the taking of private land is that its benefit to the public is far greater. Of course this benefit comes at a price. There needs to be a valuation of the property according to the “highest and best use”. For example, a Village may claim that the highest and best use for a track of land is for light industrial use and value it at $5 million. The owner of the land may say that the land has water views, the grading is flat and the highest and best use is for residential condos valued at $20 million. Of course, as it has been for centuries, an owners greatest recourse in defending against such a diminished value is to petition the Courts for a ruling. The municipality must adhere to the Court’s decision and pay what the actual value is decided.

If Your Friends Jump Off a Roof, Are You Going To?

CoopAndCondoLaw — Wed, 04 Jan 2012 13:58:07 +0000

The answer is yes and then sue the homeowner when you jump off the roof onto a trampoline and injure yourself. That is exactly what the family of James Hallwood did after he voluntarily followed two friends who were horsing around in the backyard of a neighbors home. James, an honor student, knew of the dangers but insisted on jumping anyway. According to the New York Law Journal, the Court will allow the suit to go forward since there are triable issues of fact regarding the assumption of risk. Unfortunately for the homeowners, even stupidity gets its day in Court.

Good Fences Make Good Real Property Cases

CoopAndCondoLaw — Wed, 04 Jan 2012 13:47:55 +0000

The literary aphorism used to end with “good neighbors” until neighbors in the bronx sued for beach access to the Long Island Sound. The beach front property on either side of Casler Place is owned the Acquafredda’s. They decided to put up a new fence across the properties blocking access to the beach for the local residents of Schuylerville. The residents sued the Acquafreddas for access.

According to the New York Law Journal, the Acquafreddas argued that they always maintained a fence on the property. The neighbors argued that an easement was created that allowed them to enter the beach area through the fence. The First Department, in a unanimous opinion, agreed with the neighbors and upheld an injunction ordering the Acquafreddas to halt construction of the fence and not to block access to the beach. The opinion stated “something there is that doesn’t love a wall. It is called an easement.”

Turns Out You Can Soar With The Eagles Even If You Lie With The Pigs

CoopAndCondoLaw — Tue, 08 Nov 2011 00:14:15 +0000

Tudor City is this quaint neighborhood in the east 40′s that now looks over the United Nations. The site of the UN was once a slaughterhouse for animals and an unsightly place to live. This is the reason why Tudor City Coop’s were built with their public hallways facing the East River and not their apartments. But today, it’s a lovely space that offers studio apartments as low as $170k, as reported in the NY Times. Buyer’s can enter the Manhattan real estate market for under $1,000, including their mortgage payment and their maintenance. The Tudor City Coops generally have subleasing restrictions to encourage owner occupancy though. For the new buyer or young professional, there is no better Manhattan deal out there. The “creative” thinker will have to make do with the under 300 square feet accommodations, but who cares, you own an apartment in Manhattan!

Rats…Foiled Again

CoopAndCondoLaw — Mon, 31 Oct 2011 12:47:46 +0000

A subway rider sought to recover damages for injuries sustained, when he jumped out of a rat’s way and fell on the train platform. In premises liability cases actual or constructive notice of the condition is required in order to recover damages from a premises owner. Testimony from an MTA employee found that 20 minutes before the accident, no garbage or rats were present. The Court agreed with the MTA and found that Plaintiff’s evidence did not raise a triable issue of fact,as reported in the Law Journal. The Court further stated that, the sequence of events could not have been foreseen or protected against and the premises owner could not be held liable.

Hitting The Gas On Foreclosure Without Checking The Mirrors

CoopAndCondoLaw — Mon, 31 Oct 2011 12:37:50 +0000

A New York District Court upheld an acceleration clause in a mortgage foreclosure action that did not require prior notice. The borrowers default on payments was sufficient enough, after the lender presented to the Court the note, mortgage, and an affidavit stating borrower’s default, to satisfy New York’s requirements for foreclosure. The New York Law Journal cited Bank of Am. Nat’l Assoc. v. Commack Prop. LLC as the seminal case for NY foreclosure requirements.

This Is Not a Commercial For Housing Court But I Think It’s Super

CoopAndCondoLaw — Sat, 29 Oct 2011 09:00:51 +0000

A petitioner had commenced a superintendent holdover proceeding in the commercial landlord-tenant part seeking the eviction of a building super whose employment had been terminated. There were no commercial units in the building and the Court dismissed the case from the commercial part calendar since, t the core of the proceeding the case was purely residential in nature. RPAPL 713(11) provides that a special proceeding may be maintained under this article where the person in possession entered into possession as an incident to employment. Even so, the Court ruled, and the Law Journal reported, that housing court is the proper forum for such a proceeding and not the commercial part.

No Walk On The Beach

CoopAndCondoLaw — Fri, 28 Oct 2011 14:35:33 +0000

An easement granting a four foot beach access route was challenged in the Suffolk County Supreme Court. A 1965 deed provided for the easement but no affirmative action was taken until the easement holder petitioned the Court to build a footbridge over the dunes. The opposing argument was that the easement was abandoned after 55 years had past with no action by the easement holder. The Law Journal reported that the Court ruled in favor of the Easement holder since, there was no clear demonstration of relinquishment of the easement. Where abandonment of the easement could not be shown, it remained valid.

Kicked to The Curb…Again!

CoopAndCondoLaw — Sun, 18 Sep 2011 16:25:39 +0000

A New York Supreme Court Judge has ruled that New York City is not required to fund a transitional rental assistance program, as reported in the New York Law Journal. The City’s budget constraints have forced it to cut funding to many programs, including the Advantage Program. A program designed to provided rental assistance to former homeless people who were living in emergency shelters. The program would give the homeless a chance to get back on their feet and into their own apartments. The Court ruled that the Advantage Program has laudable goals, but is nothing more than a social benefit program, which the City had a right to terminate. The Court went on to say that the City has no ongoing obligation, contractual or otherwise, to continue the program. The Legal Aid Society, who represents the class effected by the program, will have to decide whether of not to appeal the decision.