The Fourth Department held that an unambiguous 1989 deed conclusively conveyed the disputed right-of-way segment and that unilateral mistake without fraud could not support reformation.
The Fourth Department held that Ontario County’s solar-tax opt-out remained effective despite the absence of proof it was filed with NYSERDA.
The Fourth Department reinstates a slip-and-fall complaint against a snow removal contractor, finding that contractor’s actual salting practice on the day of the fall may have completely displaced the property owner’s duty to address ice, triggering an Espinal exception.
The Fourth Department held that a standard commercial lease attorney’s fees clause does not authorize “fees on fees” — recovery of fees incurred to collect a prior attorney’s fee award — absent unmistakably clear contractual language, and further held that failure to object to a referee’s denial of CPLR 5001 prejudgment interest waives that argument on appeal.
The Fourth Department held that res judicata bars Happy Lake House’s quiet title claim because its predecessor discontinued a prior quiet title action with prejudice in 1971, waiving all rights in the parcel, and that privity runs through the chain of title to bind the current owner.
The Fourth Department unanimously affirmed that Heritage Christian Services established exclusive charitable use of its Webster property under RPTL 420-a for tax years 2017–2023, holding that the school district’s unsupported opposition failed to raise a triable issue of fact.
The Fourth Department reversed the sua sponte dismissal of Syracuse University’s tax-assessment challenge, holding that RPTL 525(2)(a) is not jurisdictional and cannot be invoked after a municipality expressly waives it, and granted the University a full RPTL 420-a educational-use exemption on summary judgment.
The Fourth Department reversed summary judgment for property-owner defendants and reinstated a real estate broker’s commission claim, finding that post-expiration text messages discussing incoming offers created a triable issue whether the parties formed an implied-in-fact contract for brokerage services.