Monthly Archives: May 2021

This was originally posted on the SGR Blog.

The New York State Legislature has, over the years, passed hundreds of statutes. Some are generally known. But some are obscure. Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law Section 861, known in the trade as the “stump law,” covers allegations that a person impermissibly cut down trees on the property of another. And, as a recent case illustrates, “stump law” litigation raises unique factual and legal issues.

Daniel J. Holser owns rural property in the Town of Poestenkill, Rensselaer County, that adjoins a portion of property owned by Gregory T. Miller and Lauren R. Miller. Holser sued the Millers on December 30, 2016, after discovering that trees had been cut and removed from his property and there was damage to his land, including significant rutting. Alleging that the Millers directed Todd Geerholt and others to remove the trees on their property, the Holsers asserted causes of action for trespass, conversion, negligence and violations of RPAPL 861. Following discovery, Geerholt moved for dismissal of the complaint as untimely. And the Millers moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against them. Supreme Court denied those motions. Geerholt and the Millers appealed.

This was originally posted on the SGR Blog.

A contract for the sale of entity-owned real property may contain a representation that the signatory on behalf of the seller has the authority to bind the titleholder. But what happens if that authority is challenged after the agreement is signed? As a recent case illustrates, apparent authority may not suffice where actual authority does not exist.

On July 12, 2004, Samuel Fleischman, Avi Shriki, and Mordechai Danino executed an operating agreement when they formed E.N.Y Plaza, L.L.C., a limited liability company. Fleischman, Shriki, and Mordechai Danino each held a one-third interest in Plaza, the sole asset of which is a building located in Brooklyn.

This was originally posted on the SGR Blog.

Proposals, counter-proposals, term sheets, and memos-of-understanding are regularly and routinely exchanged in the ordinary course of negotiations of contracts for the purchase and sale of real property. But, as a recent case illustrates, a mutually accepted MOU may be found to constitute a binding and enforceable agreement in the absence of a more formal contract.

South Bronx Overall Economic Development Corp. sued 4521 Park Ave. Realty Corp. for specific performance and breach of contract in connection with an alleged agreement for sale by 4521 Park to Sobro of the real property at 4521-4529 Park Avenue in the Bronx.