Farrell v. Sitaras
22 A.D.3d 518, 803 N.Y.S.2d 659 (2005)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A purchaser of real property is not charged with constructive record notice of an encumbrance recorded prior to the adoption of a 'block and lot' indexing system if that encumbrance is recorded outside their direct chain of title, even if it was indexed under the same general block number.
Facts:
- The plaintiffs and the defendant, Panagiota Sitaras, own adjacent lots in Brooklyn that were once under common ownership.
- On September 26, 1947, the common owner conveyed one lot to the plaintiffs' predecessor-in-title.
- The 1947 deed granted an express easement for a footpath over the remaining lot, which the common grantor retained.
- This easement was noted in all subsequent deeds within the plaintiffs' chain of title.
- In 1995, the common grantor's successor sold the retained lot (the one burdened by the easement) to Sitaras's predecessor-in-title.
- Neither the 1995 deed nor any subsequent deeds in Sitaras's chain of title mentioned the easement.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiffs sued Panagiota Sitaras in the Supreme Court, Kings County (a trial-level court), seeking a judgment declaring they have an easement over her property.
- Sitaras filed a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims and for summary judgment on her counterclaim to quiet title.
- The trial court granted Sitaras's motion in part, dismissing the plaintiffs' claims that were based on the existence of an express easement with record notice.
- The trial court denied Sitaras's motion for summary judgment on her counterclaim to quiet title, finding triable issues of fact regarding actual notice.
- The plaintiffs (as appellants) appealed the dismissal of their claims to the appellate court.
- Sitaras (as cross-appellant) appealed the denial of summary judgment on her counterclaim to the same appellate court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a purchaser of real property have constructive record notice of an easement that does not appear in their direct chain of title, but was recorded in an adjoining property's chain of title prior to the implementation of a modern 'block and lot' indexing system?
Opinions:
Majority - S. Miller, J.P., Krausman, Fisher and Lifson, JJ. (Per Curiam)
No, a purchaser does not have constructive record notice of an easement recorded outside their chain of title under an outdated 'block-only' indexing system. The court reasoned that while a modern 'block and lot' system, as described in Andy Assoc. v Bankers Trust Co., charges a purchaser with notice of all matters indexed to their specific lot, this expanded duty does not apply to older systems that lacked lot numbers. Requiring a title searcher to review every single instrument for every parcel within an entire city block would be 'manifestly unreasonable.' Therefore, for instruments recorded in Kings County before the adoption of the 'block and lot' system on July 1, 1964, the traditional rule applies: a purchaser is only chargeable with notice of conveyances recorded within their direct chain of title. Since the easement was not in Sitaras's chain of title and was recorded under the old system, she did not have record notice of it.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the limits of the constructive notice doctrine in jurisdictions that have transitioned between different property recording systems. It establishes that the expanded search duty imposed by modern 'block and lot' systems is not retroactive to older, less specific 'block-only' systems. The ruling protects bona fide purchasers from the unreasonable burden of searching every document related to an entire city block for potential encumbrances created outside their chain of title. This case highlights how the mechanics of a jurisdiction's recording and indexing system are critical in determining the scope of a purchaser's duty to search and what knowledge the law will impute to them.
