Victor M. Metsch, Esq.

This was orginally published on the SGR Blog.

Street parking space is an extremely  valuable commodity in New York City, in general, and in densely  populated  residential neighborhoods, in particular. A recent spat between neighbors in Brooklyn implicated both the statute and case law  governing the several elements of a  claim of  title by adverse possession, with the overlay of two Court-made rules or doctrines, as well as a legal presumption and a shifting burden of proof.

Waterview Towers, Inc. and 2610 Cropsey Development Corp. are owners of properties in Brooklyn that abut Centre Place, a private driveway/street. Waterview owns tax block 6933, lot 55. Cropsey owns tax block 6933, lots 48 and 51. A small parking area has existed along the half of Centre Place abutting the Waterview property since prior to Cropsey’s purchase of the neighboring lot in 2005.

This was originally posted on the SGR Blog.

Ismael Realty Corp. filed suit to obtain a license for permission to enter upon the adjoining property owned by Helen Zervos in furtherance of a construction project in Astoria, New York. The area in dispute was a concrete alley that separated the neighboring properties.

A three day hearing was held in November, 2019. Abdul Navaraez, Kenneth Philogene, and George King testified on behalf of Ismael. Dennis Zervos, Louis Leonidas Zervos, and Nicholas Politis testified for the Zervos. As a threshold matter, the Court credited the testimony given by the Zervos’ witnesses. To the extent that the testimony of the Ismael’s witnesses was inconsistent with that given by the Zervos’ witnesses, the Court declined to credit such testimony.

Ismael purchased two contiguous lots in Astoria with the intention of erecting a 5 or 6-story residential building. Before construction could begin, it was necessary to demolish the then-existing structures on the two lots.  The properties lie immediately adjacent to the Zervos property, which consists of a 3-family home, with multiple tenants.

This was originally posted on the SGR Blog.

Disputes over the right of a seller to keep, or the duty to return, the down payment on a failed residential contract of sale are common, contentious and fact-specific. And regularly arise out of a contingency clause that conditions the purchaser’s obligation to close on the ability to obtain a mortgage loan. The outcome is often determined by the purchaser’s course of conduct as measured against the language of the contract. Two recent examples follow:

Doony, Inc., owned by Dr. Nonyelu Anyichie, sued Mark Palmiotto to recover a $43,500.00 down payment made in connection with a contract to buy the real property at 126 Mount Vernon Avenue, Mount Vernon, New York. Palmiotto’s attorney, John J. Pacor, Esq., the escrow agent, was also sued.