However, most deeds during the British colonial and early statehood periods were not recorded anywhere, because there was no clear legal requirement for recording. If a recorded deed for the property of interest cannot be located, contact a local historical society or library, which may hold very old original deeds that were never recorded.
Search Public Records by Name
Legislation passed in established a statewide requirement that deeds and mortgages be recorded in the county clerks' offices or the New York City register's office. If a deed was not recorded, it would be invalid if the land were sold again and the second deed was recorded. Sometimes deeds were recorded many years after the actual sale.
Deeds and mortgages recorded by this office are now held by the New York City register's office. Images may be searched or browsed by visiting the FamilySearch website. Deeds and mortgages executed outside of New York City except Richmond County continue to be recorded in the county clerks' offices throughout the state. Deeds and mortgages executed in the boroughs of Manhattan, Bronx, Queens, and Brooklyn continue to be recorded in the New York City register's office.
For further information regarding land title records in New York State or assistance in accessing land title records and indexes available in the State Archives, please contact the New York State Archives Researcher Services Unit at archref nysed.
You are here
If you believe that your house has been unfairly overappraised i. You will have to submit a form describing your property and sufficient proof that it is overassessed, including valuations of similar homes nearby as evidence. If your appeal is accepted, your home assessment and property taxes will be lowered as a result. If you would like to appeal your property, call the Kings County Assessor's Office at and ask for a property tax appeal form. Subsequently, Brooklyn LLC was informed by the Kings County District Attorney's Office that it may have been defrauded when it purchased the property, as the individual who had executed the deed to the Property on behalf of the seller, was not an authorized agent of Pergol and had no power to convey title.
The defendant purchased title insurance on the Property through Millennium and a third title search was performed. Again, it certified that Pergol could convey clear title to Brooklyn.
A second closing was held and a valid deed was delivered to Brooklyn from Pergol and thereafter, recorded. Two weeks after closing, Millennium updated its title search and concluded again that the property was free and clear of any outside interests. In April , the City made its first public claim to be the record owner of the Property, pursuant to a condemnation order issued in After reviewing the City's claim, the title insurer Fidelity arranged for a fourth independent title search of the Property to determine whether the City's claim that it had properly recorded evidence of its alleged condemnation, had any merit.
The fourth search, this time undertaken with the knowledge of the City's claimed interest, yielded the same result as that reached by both Millennium and SGT. Fidelity found the Property to be free and clear of any claimed interest by the City.
Although Fidelity located a notice of pendency of the condemnation proceeding — which had expired after three years in — it was recorded and indexed against different properties with different block and lot numbers, no notice of pendency was found to have been recorded against Lot In addition to the four searches, in January , the City's Department of Health and Mental Hygiene served defendant Brooklyn LLC with an Order finding defendant in violation of various health code provisions.
The fact that the City never recorded its interest in the Property is undisputed. In its opposition to defendants claim that all four of its searches were diligent searches, plaintiff opposes defendants' motion for summary judgment on two grounds: first, that Brooklyn LLC had actual knowledge of the City's ownership interest in Lot , at the time Lot was conveyed to it in by Pergol. Plaintiff alleges that the title abstract prepared by Millennium in connection with Brooklyn LLC's title search "unequivocally states that the City is the owner of Lot Neither of plaintiff's experts made note of finding such an "unequivocal" statement of the plaintiff's ownership of said property in the abstract prepared by Millennium.
This Court undertook a search of the abstract for such a statement and was unable to find any reference at all to plaintiff's ownership. Since the plaintiff has failed to provide any proof of said statement being in the abstract prepared by Millennium, the Court will not consider this allegation in its determination. Second, plaintiff City alleges that the defendants' expert affidavits are insufficient to controvert the expert affidavits submitted on behalf of the City on the present motions and thus, fail to raise an issue of fact on the question of what constituted a diligent title search.
Unfortunately, plaintiff's experts had the benefit of knowing what they were looking for when their searches were conducted. This fact certainly influenced the outcome of their searches and what steps they took in attempting to track down the unrecorded Property interest claimed by the City. Moreover, the "Expert Affidavit" of Christopher Beck states that pursuant to his search of the public record he found the following: "After block lot 6 was subdivided in tax year into lots 6, , , , , , , , , , , , and , title to lot 6 and lots was conveyed to Nehemiah Housing Development Fund Company, Inc.
New lot was not included in the conveyance. Additionally, the old owner of lot 6 prior to its subdivision continued to be shown as the assessed owner of new lot That was consistent with the old owner's continued ownership of the newly subdivided lot".
Assessor | Kings County
He also found that "the assessed owner of block lot was never changed f rom private ownership to the City of New York or HPD. Indeed, taxes continued to be assessed on lot " indicating that the Property was still in private ownership. Caselaw demonstrates that factors and considerations that may constitute "inquiry notice". For purposes of determining whether a purchaser is entitled to the protection of the recording act, a party will be deemed to have inquiry notice when it had knowledge of facts that would lead a reasonably prudent purchaser to make inquiry.
Ward v. In Washington Mut.
Property Tax Highlights
Bank, FA v. Peak Health Club, Inc.
https://osporhyajale.tk Actual possession of a property by someone other than the seller imposes a duty of inquiry on the potential purchaser. Further "the appraisal report is sufficient to put plaintiff on inquiry as to the existence of some right or claim of title, and at such time the duty to inquire is imposed on plaintiff to decipher the extent, if any, of the adverse claim" which may result from the person in actual possession.