New York Real Estate Lawyers Blog

June 11, 2020

Post-Covid Re-Opening: Back in the Swing of Things

We hope that our readers have been fortunate enough to have stayed healthy during these trying times. Finally, our home region has commenced the post-Covid re-opening process. We are currently in Phase II. Our attorneys hope that all business activities will return to “normal” as soon as possible, just as baseball fans want to hear the “crack of the bat” as their favorite player hits a home run. Since it is time for us to catch up on routine medical care, it is also prudent to consider returning to meeting your legal needs. This post will address the specific areas that can be covered by our lawyers at this time.

New real estate transactions have diminished in recent months. This author anticipates a delayed Spring market, meaning that contracts that may have been signed in March and April will likely be signed in the upcoming weeks instead. Covid shutdown regulations forbid in-person showings by real estate agents. Property owners were scared to allow potential buyers into their homes for viewings. Phase II allows real estate agents to show properties in person, rather than merely virtually. Sellers have become aware that buyers concerned with diminished quality of city life may now crave serene suburban living. It is potentially an optimal time to sell one’s house.

Restrictions on retail establishments have started to loosen, allowing for curbside pickup and potential additional shopping options. Restaurants are permitted to serve with outside seating. While these sound like positive developments, the income stream to the commercial tenant with such restrictions is severely limited. As such, it may be time to request that your attorney review your commercial lease and seek a modification. Tenants are otherwise expected to pay full rent, without being able to fully occupy the space and generate the same amount of income per square foot.

May 28, 2020

Thor Getting Hammered? Rent and the Pandemic in New York

By Weiss & Weiss

A recent news story in New York relates to New York Mets right-hander Noah Syndergaard and his lease for a New York City apartment. It appears that the pitcher, nicknamed “Thor”, signed a lease for a penthouse in the Tribeca area of downtown New York City for ten months, starting in March of this year. His rent was $22,500 a month and the $17,000 broker’s commission was to be paid by the tenant. The lease was signed in February, before the coronavirus pandemic shut New York City down a month later. In addition, the hurler then discovered in early March that he would need the dreaded “Tommy John” surgery to replace a ligament in his elbow, and would miss the entire baseball season, which, at that point, was scheduled to begin in late March.

We therefore have a situation where the tenant’s circumstances changed a great deal after he signed the lease. The pandemic shut down much of New York City. Then, because of injury, he probably no longer needed an apartment in New York City, because he will most likely rehabilitate his injury at the Mets training facilities in Florida, and will not need to live in New York City during the upcoming season (which, due to the pandemic, has not even started, and may not happen at all). On top of it all, Major League Baseball has recently proposed a plan to re-start the season with players being forced to accept major cuts in salary, which would limit Snydergaard’s ability to pay the agreed-upon rent.

There are several legal issues raised in this situation. One issue concerns using the media to attempt to obtain publicity for one’s legal conflicts, as the parties have done in the Syndergaard case. Our firm disagrees with litigating through the media, as we believe it is best for the parties to attempt to work out disputes privately, through counsel, rather than by using media outlets to espouse their positions. If negotiations are unsuccessful, then the Court system remains the best avenue for resolving such disputes.

May 21, 2020

Post-Foreclosure Surplus Funds – Who Gets the Money?

By Weiss & Weiss

Prior blog posts have discussed the concept of surplus monies in foreclosure proceedings. To summarize, when a foreclosed property is sold at public auction, it is possible that the highest winning bid may exceed the sum owed to the entity foreclosing on the property. For example, an individual defaults on his mortgage, and the Referee determines that the amount due to the mortgage holder is $300,000.00. The property is sold at a foreclosure sale, and a third party bids and pays $350,000.00 for the property. In that situation, the foreclosing lender would be paid the first $300,000.00. But who is legally entitled to the remaining $50,000.00?

A recent case from the New York Appellate Division, Second Department helps answer this question. In that action, a homeowner on Staten Island failed to pay his taxes, resulting in a tax lien being filed against his property. As is often the case, the tax lien was sold to a third party, who brought a foreclosure action to sell the property at public auction in order to satisfy the tax lien. When the property was sold at public auction in 2000, it resulted in a surplus of $42,986.00. That is, the winning bid at the foreclosure auction exceeded the amount of the tax lien (plus costs, penalties, and interest) by $42,986.00.

The Appellate Division had to determine which of two claimants was entitled to this surplus money. The first claimant was the original homeowner. The other claimant was a mortgage holder on the property, the New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD). HPD held a first mortgage on the property securing a fifteen year loan in the sum of $56,250. The homeowner defaulted on the HPD mortgage in April, 1997. HPD claimed that, as of 2017, the homeowner owed it $148,096.30 (the unpaid balance of the mortgage, plus interest), and sought to claim the surplus funds to partially satisfy this debt.

May 14, 2020

Let’s Make a Deal: COVID’s Changes to New York’s Commercial Lease Landscape

By Weiss & Weiss

Commercial leases in New York are not immune to the effects of COVID. Enforced shutdowns of “non-essential” businesses by governmental authority has led to mass closure of many retail stores and restaurants and record-high unemployment rates. Even restaurants limited to the restriction of takeout and delivery service are suffering severely reduced revenue. The current business climate has inherently altered the lease obligations that a tenant can maintain. This post will address how the parties to a lease should be addressing the changes to New York’s commercial lease landscape.

It is not unusual for commercial leases to contain a requirement by the tenant to maintain business interruption insurance. Tenants with such coverage should file a claim with their insurer. Many insurers may initially deny the claim on the basis that pandemics are not included in their coverage. This tactic is likely to be subject to future litigation. Ultimately, the insurers may be required to cover such losses.

A tenant should have an experienced attorney review the particular lease that has been signed to determine whether a force majeure clause may excuse the tenant from its rent obligations. This clause excuses a tenant from obligations for circumstances beyond its control such as terrorist attack, war, famine, strikes, catastrophic weather conditions and acts of God. A particular lease needs to be evaluated to determine whether a pandemic is considered to be a force majeure. Force majeure may also provide the tenant with a defense if conditions prevented it from obtaining a building permit, completing a build-out according to an established schedule, opening for business by a particular date and the like.

May 6, 2020

New Law Relating to Inheritance of Real Property and Partition Actions

By Weiss & Weiss

A prior blog post discussed inheritance of real property. For example, a parent passes away and leaves a house in equal shares to her three children. The three children are now co-owners of the property. Of course, each co-owner may be in a different life situation. For example, one of the adult children may have been living with the last parent to pass away, and wishes to remain residing at the property indefinitely. The other co-owners may have moved from f the property many years ago, and simply want to sell the property and receive their respective one-third of the net proceeds from the sale. All of the co-owners have certain legal rights, which rights have now been modified by a recent (2019) amendment to existing New York law on partitions and inherited property.

Under the original New York Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (Article 9), any co-owner of the property who wishes to no longer own the property has an absolute right to petition the Court for a sale of the property. As long as the party can prove that he is the valid owner of a portion of the property, and that the property could not be physically divided between the co-owners, the Court would order a sale of the property, assuming the parties could not work out a resolution to the situation among themselves, or through their counsel.

Therefore, the only way for the parties to avoid a Court-ordered sale and public auction of the property would be to agree to a buyout by the party who wishes to retain the property exclusively, or for all parties to agree to sell the property to an unrelated person and share the proceeds in the same proportion as their ownership interests, without further Court intervention. This is what happens in the majority of partition actions handled by our firm. However, the absolute right to have the property sold led to an abuse of the partition law, resulting in the 2019 amendment. What was occurring was that third parties would purchase a small stake in an inherited property, and then use their newly-acquired ownership share to force an unwanted sale, or use the threat of same to extort above-market settlements from their fellow co-owners. For example, an individual inherits a small share (10%) of a property. They then sell that share to a third party. That third party now threatens a partition sale, is her right, unless she is “bought out” for an amount much larger than her share would be worth on the open market. The co-owners are forced to acquiesce so as to avoid losing the property in a Court-ordered sale.

April 22, 2020

The Show Must Go On – Closings and Coronavirus in New York State

By Weiss & Weiss

Despite current conditions, the purchase and sale of real estate in New York is continuing. This post will discuss how COVID-19 has changed the “nuts and bolts” of an ordinary transaction, from start to finish. First, let’s assume a homeowner wishes to list her home for sale. Due to social distancing expectations, mass showings of properties, such as “open houses,” would be frowned upon, if not prohibited. However, individual showings by appointment of properties, by licensed real estate brokers, may continue. Another option being utilized is virtual showings of properties on various online platforms. This allows potential buyers to view the property while maintaining safety. Younger or first-time homebuyers may be more comfortable with the virtual option, as they usually have more familiarity with online services.

Once there has been an accepted offer, the next step is often the hiring of a home inspector to inspect the property. Currently, this is being allowed, but with the restriction that the inspector will inspect the property alone, without being accompanied by the potential buyer. Once the inspector completes his work and issues a report, the buyer can use this information in contract negotiations.

The parties will then negotiate a Contract of Sale, which is traditionally prepared by the seller’s attorney. As contracts are prepared and transmitted online, current conditions will not affect this portion of the transaction a great deal. The attorneys, buyer, seller, and brokers can still exchange information and offers online or by telephone without violating any social distancing restrictions.

April 8, 2020

Happy and Healthy Holidays from Weiss & Weiss

By Weiss & Weiss

Weiss & Weiss would like to wish all those who celebrate safe and happy Passover and Easter holidays. We’re hoping everyone stays healthy during these difficult times, and look forward to better times ahead.

April 2, 2020

Landlord, Tenants and COVID-19 in New York

By Weiss & Weiss

A prior blog post discussed the effects of the coronavirus situation on real estate in New York. Since that post, things have certainly escalated quickly. Most of the economy, not just in New York, but throughout our entire country and the rest of the world, has shut down, as governments have ordered people to stay isolated, observe “social distancing”, and avoid large crowds. Most people are working from home or are out of work because their place of business has been ordered closed until the crisis passes.

The New York Times recently posted an article which discusses the effect of the current situation on landlords and tenants. Our firm is rare in that it represents both landlords and tenants. We will discuss the effects from a landlord’s perspective. The New York State government has ordered a three-month moratorium on evictions. In addition, the local courts which would have handled such eviction cases are also closed until further notice. This means that all pending eviction matters have been adjourned. For example, an eviction petition could have been served on a tenant prior to the Court shutdown, but with a return date after the shutdown. The Courts will have to reschedule these cases when they reopen. This will inevitably lead to a backlog of cases, especially in the busier New York City Courts. Westchester town courts, with their smaller caseloads, are likely to be less affected when they reopen but will still experience a backlog.

Since the Courts are closed and there is a New York State moratorium, no new cases can be started. An eviction Petition is generally commenced by filing it with the Court clerk in the local Court in which the property is located. The clerk will assign a Court date and stamp the Notice of Petition and Petition as filed. It will then be formally served on the tenant by a licensed process server. Because the Courts are currently closed, it is not possible for a new action to be commenced. Without court clerks and regularly scheduled hearings, no new eviction cases can be brought until the Courts reopen. Of course, once the Courts do reopen, expect a large number of new cases to be filed because of the growing backlog and situations that have arisen due to a tenant’s inability to pay.

March 19, 2020

Coronavirus and its Effects on Real Estate Law in New York

By Weiss & Weiss

Unless you have been living in isolation on a deserted island, you are aware of the recent coronavirus situation. In order to avoid contaminating large numbers of people, many businesses have closed, and many individuals are remaining at home rather than venturing outside.

This blog post will discuss the effects of coronavirus on our legal system. The first change relates to eviction actions. Our firm is rare in that it represents both landlords and tenants in Court. On March 15, 2020, the Chief Administrative Judge for the State of New York Unified Court System issued a Memorandum in which it was stated that effective March 16, all eviction proceedings and pending eviction orders shall be suspended statewide until further notice.

This means that landlords will be unable to commence new proceedings against defaulting tenants. Most courts have closed due to the health crisis, including lower level Courts which generally handle evictions in New York State, such as City Courts and Town and Village Courts. Since these Courts are closed until further notice, there are no Court Clerks or other officials which whom to file a new eviction petition. Nor are Courts open to assign return dates for such petitions, or hold hearings for eviction matters.

March 12, 2020

Foreclosure Judgments in New York

By Weiss & Weiss

A recent decision in a case in upstate New York discusses issues relating to the denial of an application for a foreclosure judgment. In a foreclosure case, the plaintiff, who is usually a bank or other lending institution, must apply to the Court for a judgment. Often, after the case has first been referred to the settlement conference part, and then, in Westchester County, assigned to the Mandatory Appearance Part, the plaintiff will move for summary judgment.

In a summary judgment action, the moving party argues to the Court that there are no issues of fact which would require a trial. This may occur in several situations. The first is when the defendant fails to file an Answer to the foreclosure Complaint. If the defendant’s time to answer has expired, then the plaintiff may move for a judgment of foreclosure and sale on default. However, the plaintiff must show to the Court that it has met the elements of proof to obtain a foreclosure judgment.

The first element is to show to the Court that they are the proper party and the holder of the mortgage and note in question. This is usually done by having an officer of the lender submit an Affidavit in Support of the motion showing that the mortgage is being held by the plaintiff. In support of the Affidavit, complete copies of the Mortgage and Note should be annexed as exhibits. In addition, if the loan has been assigned to a different lender than the one listed on the Mortgage and Note, complete copies of the assignment documents should also be annexed as exhibits.