test

On September 22, 2023, Governor Kathy Hochul signed legislation (A.1967/S.5400) amending the Property Condition Disclosure Act (“PCDA”), which effectively eliminates a seller’s option to provide a residential homebuyer with a $500 credit in lieu of a Property Condition Disclosure Statement (“PCDS”). The amendment further requires sellers to disclose property information regarding flood risk, flood history and flood insurance.  This consequential shift is consistent with Gov. Hochul’s implementation of her comprehensive resiliency plan to protect New Yorkers from extreme weather. The amendment goes into effect on March 20, 2024.

This bill goes a long way towards helping give homebuyers the information they need to make informed decisions about one of the biggest financial investments of their lives — their home.

Joel Scata, Natural Resources Defense Council Attorney for Water Initiatives

Elimination of “Opt-Out” Provision

The New York legislature enacted the PCDA to supplement the information provided by professional inspections and tests and searches of the public records conducted by residential homebuyers (New York Sponsors Memorandum, 2001 Ch. 456). The PCDA was also a response to adherence seen in New York’s case law to the doctrine of “caveat emptor” or “buyer beware,” which has long permitted a residential seller to remain silent as to most matters that are not actively concealed by the seller.  Consequently, buyers ended up with the burden of thoroughly inspecting the premises, searching public records and asking sellers the “right” questions about the property.  Despite the introduction of the PCDA, sellers were given the opportunity to “opt out” of providing buyers with a PCDS, if they were willing to pay the price – $500. Unsurprisingly, the $500 credit to the purchaser became the standard, and not the PCDA.Continue Reading Disclosure Revolution: Legislation Makes Property Condition Disclosure Statements Mandatory, Adding Flood Risks, and Waving Farewell to the $500 Credit

A recent Second Department decision, Matter of Village of Kiryas Joel v County of Orange, et al., addresses the intriguing justiciability doctrine of ripeness, as applied to judicial review of municipal administrative action.

In 2007, Orange County (the “County”) acquired property known as Camp LaGuardia from the New York City Economic Development Corporation.  Originally, the County’s plan was to
Continue Reading Second Department Reverses Dismissal of Article 78 Proceeding on Ripeness Grounds

A use variance is arguably one of the most difficult zoning approvals to obtain and is rarely granted.  Petitioners in 54 Marion Ave., LLC v. City of Saratoga Springs, 2018 N.Y. Slip Op. 04611, 162 A.D.3d 1341 (3d Dep’t 2018),  commenced a hybrid proceeding/action to challenge and annul a determination of the Zoning Board of Appeals (“ZBA
Continue Reading Commercial Development around a Residential Parcel Supports Hardship Element for Use Variance

th2WTV7493A recent appellate court case, Matter of Lazarus v Board of Trustees of the Village of Malverne, 31 NYS3d 207 [2d Dept 2016], involves the approval of a special use and the denial of a special exception for the same residential premises. Here are the facts of the case.

The house in question is a two-story single-family Cape Cod

Continue Reading Village Says Yes To Special Use But No To Special Exception For The Same Residence

Located in the hamlet of Bridgehampton, Town of Southampton, a sand mine operation owned by Sand Land Corporation and run by Wainscott Sand & Gravel Corporation (“Sand Land”) had its zoning changed by the Town in 1972 from G-Industrial to CR Country Residence, now CR200, constituting five-acre residential zoning. Upon the zone change, the sand mine became a pre-existing nonconforming

Continue Reading Mining in the Hamptons: Appellate Division Affirms Town of Southampton Zoning Board of Appeals Limitations on Pre-existing Nonconforming Uses Associated with Hamptons Mining Operation