Monthly Archives: February 2024

Court Determines If Sibling Procured Transfer of Land by Fraud and Undue Influence.

Richard Crawford, as administrator, sued his brother, Kenneth Smith, and alleged that a deed purportedly conveying certain real property from the parties’ mother, Jean T. Smith, to Kenneth was procured by fraud and undue influence. Jean  died prior to the commencement of this action. The deed purportedly conveyed a fee interest in the real property to Kenneth, subject to  Jean’s retention  of a life estate in the property. After certain motion practice, the first cause of action, sounding in conversion, was dismissed.

Could Contractor Nevertheless Seek Damages For Value Of Services?

In a small claim action, Richard Chapman d/b/a Chapman Construction sought  the recovery of $2,999.99 for breach of contract by  Cheryl Davis and Heather Kunkel– who appeared and entered a general denial. The matter proceeded to trial at the first appearance. Each of the parties testified, cross-examined each other and presented documentary evidence to the court.

On or about September 15, 2021, Davis and Kunkel hired Chapman to perform a basement renovation at their home. Chapman drafted a written contract which he signed together with Kunkel.. The contract contained a general outline of the work to be performed, as well as a payment schedule.

Was Motion to Dismiss Properly Denied– Was Suit Time-Barred?

Bessie Rogers ( Derrick Simmons’ decedent)  acquired title to real property located in Queens in 1987. Simmons started an action, pursuant to RPAPL article 15,  to quiet title to the property and for a judgment declaring that a deed allegedly executed in 1998 by Rogers, which gave Alfred Bell and others an interest in the property, was forged and was, therefore, void.  Simmons also sought to recover the proceeds of a subsequent sale of the property in 2007, of which Bell allegedly took possession, and was not entitled to on account of the forged deed.

Bell moved to dismiss the complaint as barred by the statute of limitations. Supreme Court denied the motion. Bell appealed.

Was Easement Extinguished/Abandoned After Adjoining Owner Built a Brick Wall?

In 1949, certain real property in Brooklyn, known as the Marte Property, was converted to an automobile repair shop. A new certificate of occupancy was issued based upon a letter of approval by the New York City Fire Department dated March 15, 1949. The new facility included a rear door, leading to an easement of record over the adjoining real property, known as the Boerum property, for ingress and egress.

On February 17, 1987, the Marte property was conveyed to Emenegilda Marte. Shortly thereafter, the owner of the Boerum property erected a brick wall, topped by a metal fence, which blocked the easement. However, the owner of the Boerum property provided access in an area adjacent to the easement through a gate and gave the occupiers of the Marte property a key to that gate. The automobile repair shop was altered by removing a 10-foot-wide door which provided access to the easement and replacing the door with a narrower door which served as a fire exit.

Court Holds Trial to Determine If Tenant Abandoned the  Premises or Intended to Return

Ling Ling and Xiao Min Lu, the parties in  an  RPAPL 713(10)  “illegal lockout” proceeding, offered two competing and incompatible narratives.:

Ling alleged that, on July 3, 2023, she and her husband, along with their three children, left their Sunset Park apartment for a week-long vacation. When they returned, the locks to the building and the apartment had been changed and a new tenant was living in the apartment.