Mr. Schneider is the husband of Harriet Weinberger, Esq. who is the Director of the Attorney for Children Program for the Appellate Division, Second Department. Many matrimonial lawyers and 18B lawyers in Family Court know both Fred and Harriet.
On Friday, July 31, the New York City Bar, in conjunction with the Joint Minority Bar Judicial Internship Program, will be hosting a talk on how to become a judge. The program is designed for judicial law clerks and judicial interns, and the panel will feature Hon. Doris M. Gonzalez (Acting Justice, Supreme Court, Bronx County, Criminal Division), Hon. Tanya Kennedy (Judge, New York City Civil Court, New York County) and Hon. Kiyo A. Matsumoto (U.S. District Judge, Eastern District of New York). It will be moderated by Magistrate Judge Scanlon. For details, click here.
STATEN ISLAND, N.Y. —Rudolph Menicucci, 80, of Grasmere, a retired electrician and business owner who adored his family and had a myriad of interests, died Tuesday in Staten Island University Hospital, Ocean Breeze. Born in Manhattan, he grew up in Dongan Hills and moved to Grant City in mid-1950s. Mr. Menicucci settled in Grasmere in 1992.Click HERE for the full obituary.
Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman created the Commission on Statewide Attorney Discipline to conduct a comprs attorney disciplinary system to determine what is working well and what can work better, and offer recommendations to enhance the efficiency and effective discipline process. In connection with its responsibility, the Commission will hold three public hearings to receive the views of interested individuals, organizations and entities.
The hearings will take place as follows:
Among the issues under consideration by the Commission are whether New York’s departmental-based system leads to regional disparities in the implementation of discipline; if conversion to a statewide system is desirable; the point at which disciplinary charges or findings should be publicly revealed; and how to achieve dispositions more quickly in an effort to provide much-needed closure to both clients and attorneys.
The Commission will consider both oral testimony and written submissions. All testimony is by invitation only. If you are interested in being invited to testify at the hearing, please send an e-mail to AttorneyDiscipline@nycourts.gov no later than 14 days in advance of the scheduled hearing at which you propose to testify. Proposed testimony should not exceed 10 minutes in length.
If requesting an invitation, please (1) identify yourself and your affiliation; (2) attach a prepared statement or a detailed outline of the proposed testimony, and specify which, if any, of the topics described above will be addressed, and; (3) indicate at which of the hearings you would like to deliver the testimony. In advance of the hearing, invitations to testify will be issued and will include an approximate time for each presenter's testimony. For those not invited to present oral testimony, the proposed testimony will be deemed a written submission for consideration by the Commission.
Persons unable to attend a hearing or interested in only making a written submission may submit their remarks by e-mail toAttorneyDiscipline@nycourts.gov at least seven days in advance of the hearing, or by mailing the submission to the Commission at:
Commission on Statewide Attorney Discipline
c/o The Honorable A. Gail Prudenti, Chief Administrative Judge
25 Beaver Street
New York, N.Y. 10004-2310
Please note that any materials, submissions or statements provided to the Commission are subject to the provisions of the Freedom of Information Law and subject to publication by the Office of Court Administration.
For further information and updates, please visit the Commission’s webpage at www.nycourts.gov/attorneys/discipline/
Click HERE for a notice seeking applications for a place of the roster of Contract Dispute Resolution Board (CDRB) panelists.
HERE for the flyer.
The New York State CLE Board has adopted the following changes, effective , to the current requirement that newly admitted attorneys complete all of their CLE credits in the traditional live classroom setting or by fully interactive videoconference:
• Law Practice Management and Areas of Professional Practice credit may be completed in any approved format, including nonparticipatory formats, such as on-demand audio or video, or live broadcast.
• Ethics and Professionalism credit may be completed in the traditional live classroom setting; by fully interactive videoconference; or by simultaneous transmission with synchronous interactivity, such as webconference, or teleconference, where questions are allowed during the program.
• There is no change in the requirement for Skills credit, which must be completed in the traditional live classroom setting or by fully interactive videoconference.
Sarah Dean Tompkins
Assistant Deputy Counsel
New York State CLE Board
Click HERE for a downloadable copy of this story.
June 14, 2015
Most top rated sommeliers and connaisseurs de vin will readily tell you that you should drink no wine before its time. With this being duly noted, I thought back to a decision from 2007 that I had read which I found interesting, but I somehow felt that it just wasn’t time to “put it out there”. With all der sturm und drang currently emanating from the New York State Department of Financial Service’s Regulation 208, as it relates to title insurance, I am confident that now is the time to “pop the cork”, so to speak.
The case is entitled Paloubis v United General Title Insurance Company, 2007 NY Slip Op, 31278(U) May 4, 2007, Supreme Court, Queens County, Docket Number: 0016910/2006. In this case, the Insured was the successful bidder on a property at public auction known as 166-66 21st Avenue, Whitestone, NY (Block 5760 Lot 37) for $531,000. The Defendants, a Title Insurance Company and Title Agent, issued a Title Report resulting in a Title Insurance Policy for the Insured. The Insured alleged that the Defendants negligently misrepresented that the Certificate of Occupancy for the premises permitted residential use of the dwelling by two families, when, in fact, the Certificate of Occupancy for the premises authorized residential use of the dwelling by one family only. The Insured alleges that he relied upon this misrepresentation and on the Title Report and Title Policy when proceeding with the purchase and his then making renovations to convert the dwelling on the premises into a two-family dwelling. The Insured further alleges that he subsequently "discovered" that the property was not a "two-family dwelling, but a one-family dwelling," and was assessed fines for having renovated and used the premises as a two-family dwelling in violation of the zoning law. The Insured asserts causes of action for breach of contract, negligence and negligent misrepresentation, claiming that the Defendants wrongfully refused to pay them the amount of $424,800, pursuant to the Title Policy. The Defendants moved to dismiss the Complaint. The Defendant, Title Agent ordered the "Certificate of Occupancy" search from AIS (a Municipal Search Company), who failed to appear in this action.
The Court held that with respect to the claim by the Insured for breach of contract, "[a] policy of title insurance protects a property owner against loss by reason of defective titles and encumbrances and insur[es] the correctness of searches for all instruments, liens or charges affecting the title to such property' and that the liability of the title insurer to its insured is essentially based on contract law [and] is governed and limited by agreements, terms, conditions and provisions contained in the title insurance policy".
The Court held that the Owner’s Policy affords the Insured coverage for loss occasioned by a defect in title, including liens or encumbrances on the title, or unmarketability of the title. Contrary to the Insured’s argument, that the Certificate of Occupancy for the property restricts its use to one-family residential use does not render the title defective or unmarketable, or constitute an encumbrance on the title. "[M]arketability of title is concerned with impairments on title to a property, i.e., the right to unencumbered ownership and possession, not with legal public regulation of the use of the property". Because a Certificate of Occupancy and zoning laws regulate the manner in which the property can be used and does not impair title, the damages claimed by the Insured do not fall within the scope of the title insurance policy.
The Court went on to say that insofar as the Insured based his claims against the Defendants for negligence and negligent misrepresentation regarding the authorized use of the premises, he relied upon a copy of the "CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY" report annexed to the Title Report which states that a Certificate of Occupancy had been issued on February 5, 1958 for a three-story, "TWO FAMILY DWELLING" and garage for the premises known as "166-66 21 AVENUE COUNTY: QUEENS BLOCK: 05760 LOT: 00037." In addition, he alleges that he relied upon the copy of the Certificate of Occupancy provided to him. The misrepresentation regarding the property's authorized use in the Certificate of Occupancy report was not made until after the Insured already had entered into the Contract of Sale. Thus, the Insured could not have relied upon the misrepresentation to his detriment in contracting to purchase the property. To the extent the Insured asserts that he relied upon the same misrepresentation when closing the transaction, the Contract of Sale itself made no representation regarding the existence of a Certificate of Occupancy for any dwelling. Thus, a reasonable and prudent person should have carefully read the copy of the Certificate of Occupancy supplied by the Title Agency if the type of authorized use was relevant to the decision to close the transaction. If the Insured had done so, he would have seen that on its face, the property address listed thereon, including the Block and Lot numbers, failed to match the one set forth in the Certificate of Occupancy report, or in the offer or Contract of Sale. Hence, he should have realized it may not have been the correct Certificate of Occupancy for the property he contracted to purchase. In view of the address discrepancy, and because the cover sheet to the annexed copy of the Certificate of Occupancy, (denominated "Municipal Department Searches and Street Report") specifically warned that any search reported was furnished "FOR INFORMATION PURPOSES ONLY," and would not be insured and that the company would not assume "any liability for the accuracy thereof," the Insured should have made an additional inquiry as to whether the representation in the Certificate of Occupancy report was, in fact, correct. Additionally, the Insured himself acknowledged in the offer and in the Contract of Sale that he had inspected the property, and, thus, should have been aware that the physical layout of the dwelling was inconsistent with a residential use by two families. At a minimum, the Insured should have double-checked to confirm the accuracy of the representation in the Certificate of Occupancy report, prior to commencing the renovation work. As the Insured concedes, the status of the Certificate of Occupancy issued for the correct premises was readily available as a matter of public record. The Certificate of Occupancy provided to the Insured stated it was for a property with the address "160-66 21st Ave.," "Block 5755 Lot 20" (as opposed to 166-66 21stAve., Block 5760, Lot 37). Under such circumstances, the Insured cannot be said to have justifiably relied upon the misrepresentation regarding the authorized use of the premises pursuant to the Certificate of Occupancy at the time he closed the transaction.
Lastly, the title insurance policy further provides: "EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE The following matters are expressly excluded from the coverage of this policy and the Company will not pay loss or damage, costs, attorneys' fees or expenses which arise by reason of: 1. (a) Any law, ordinance or governmental regulation (including but not limited to building and zoning laws, ordinances, or regulations) restricting, regulating, prohibiting or relating to (I) the occupancy, use, or enjoyment of the land . . . or the effect of any violation of these laws, ordinances or governmental regulations, except to the extent that a notice of the enforcement thereof or a notice of a defect, lien or encumbrance resulting from a violation or alleged violation affecting the land has been recorded in the public records at Date of Policy." Thus, the terms of the Contract sued upon specifically and unambiguously disclaim responsibility for the mistake related to the Certificate of Occupancy that forms the basis for this action. Hence, the Court dismissed the Complaint for failure to state a cause of action.
My comments: It appears, by all accounts, that the Court was pre-disposed in finding no liability against the Defendants for breach of contract, negligence or negligent misrepresentation. The Court held that the Owner’s Policy was a Contract as between the Insured and the Title Company, and it clearly detailed therein the terms of coverage which clearly excluded all matters relating to the Certificate of Occupancy. However, and in most instances, Municipal Department Searches, which include a Certificate of Occupancy Search and a copy of the Certificate of Occupancy, when available, are searches that a prospective Insured pays for, and while they may be ancillary to a Title Report and are not insured under the Owner’s Policy, they are, without question relied upon by a prospective Purchaser as being accurate when a proposed Insured is considering purchasing a property. Therefore, while the Title Company may contractually rely upon the “For Information Purposes Only” declaration, as an “out”, I find it highly implausible that a Title Agent, under a contract theory, quasi-contract theory, and/or a negligence theory, may rely upon an “oops, I’m sorry, what we stated is wrong, and while you may have relied upon the accuracy of what we provided to you in making a decision to close, we assume no responsibility for the accuracy or in-accuracy of the contents of what may be contained in the Searches” theory. There has to be some semblance of culpability when the contents of the Municipal Department Searches prove to be wrong. If the searches are fore-warned as being worthless, then why bother running the searches?
Collaterally, when a Lender receives a Title Report and examines the Municipal Department Searches, the Lender, no doubt, relies upon the accuracy of the searches. Having said that, since a Title Agent (or its Municipal Search Company), to say the least, should bear responsibility for the accuracy of these searches, the Title Agent, just the same, should be entitled to charge appropriately for these searches, and not only as a pass-through expense, since the Title Agent will find itself bearing the responsibility for the accuracy of these searches, at the very least, as a quasi-insurer as to their accuracy, at the risk of being held financially responsible for their in-accuracy.
I find this Decision to be a pre-disposed aberration, and Title Agencies should not downplay or under-estimate the value of these Municipal Department Searches, the accuracy of these searches, or the potentiality of liability of the Title Agent emanating from the in-accuracy of these searches.