Real estate in New York is not just an investment — it is the foundation of most business and personal wealth in the city. When a real estate transaction goes wrong, the financial consequences are immediate and often severe. A breached purchase agreement, a disputed title, a partner who diverts property income, or a tenant who refuses to vacate can each independently generate litigation that lasts years and costs hundreds of thousands of dollars. The stakes in New York real estate disputes are among the highest in any area of civil practice, and the margin for error is small.
At Travis & DeBlase PLLC, we represent property owners, investors, and developers in real estate disputes across Manhattan and the greater New York area. What follows is an overview of the most common types of real estate disputes we handle, and the legal principles that drive them.
Breach of Contract in Real Estate Transactions
The most straightforward real estate disputes arise from breach of contract — one party to a purchase agreement, lease, or development contract fails to perform its obligations. In New York, real estate contracts are governed by strict requirements. The statute of frauds requires that contracts for the sale of real property be in writing and signed by the party to be charged. Oral agreements, handshake deals, and unsigned term sheets are generally unenforceable, no matter how much the parties invested in reliance on them.
When a buyer defaults on a purchase agreement, the seller’s remedies typically include retaining the down payment as liquidated damages, provided the contract contains an enforceable liquidated damages clause and the amount is not so disproportionate to actual damages as to constitute a penalty. When a seller defaults, the buyer may seek specific performance — a court order compelling the seller to close — because real property is considered unique under New York law. The availability of specific performance distinguishes real estate litigation from most other breach of contract claims, where money damages are the standard remedy.
We frequently handle disputes involving failed closings, where the question of which party breached and which party is entitled to the deposit turns on the specific language of the contract and the sequence of events leading up to the scheduled closing date. These cases are intensely fact-specific, and the outcome often depends on the quality of the documentary record — emails, letters from counsel, title objections, and mortgage commitment correspondence.
Fraud and Misrepresentation in Property Sales
Fraud claims in New York real estate transactions are common but difficult to prove. A buyer who discovers after closing that the property has undisclosed defects, environmental contamination, or encumbrances faces an uphill battle. New York follows the doctrine of caveat emptor — buyer beware — more strictly than most jurisdictions. Under the Court of Appeals’ decision in Stambovsky v. Ackley and its progeny, a seller generally has no duty to disclose defects that the buyer could have discovered through reasonable inspection, unless the seller actively conceals the condition or makes affirmative misrepresentations.
The exception is when the seller or the seller’s agent makes a specific factual representation that turns out to be false. In those cases, the buyer must prove that the representation was material, that it was made with knowledge of its falsity or reckless disregard for the truth, that the buyer justifiably relied on it, and that the reliance caused damages. Each of these elements must be pleaded with particularity under CPLR 3016(b), and courts will dismiss fraud claims that rely on vague allegations or conclusory assertions.
We advise clients on both sides of these disputes. For buyers, the key is to document every representation made during the transaction and to preserve the evidence of reliance. For sellers, the defense typically centers on the as-is clause in the contract, the buyer’s opportunity to inspect, and the absence of any affirmative misrepresentation.
Partnership and Co-Ownership Disputes
Some of the most contentious real estate disputes involve co-owners or partners who can no longer agree on how to manage, develop, or dispose of a shared property. In New York, a co-owner of real property has the right to seek a partition action under RPAPL Article 9, which allows the court to either physically divide the property or order a judicial sale and divide the proceeds. Partition actions are powerful tools, but they are also blunt instruments that can destroy value if not handled strategically.
The more complex disputes arise when the co-ownership is structured through an LLC, partnership, or joint venture, and the governing agreement contains provisions that restrict transfers, require buy-sell procedures, or impose management obligations. In those cases, the dispute is governed by contract law and the Business Corporation Law or LLC Law, not the partition statute, and the remedies available depend entirely on the language of the operating agreement.
We see these disputes most frequently in the context of family-owned properties, investor groups that have fallen out, and development partnerships where one partner has stopped contributing capital or has been diverting income. The resolution almost always requires a combination of litigation skill and business judgment — knowing when to fight, when to negotiate, and when to structure a buyout that allows both parties to walk away with their interests intact.
Co-op and Condominium Disputes
New York’s co-op and condominium structures create a unique category of real estate disputes. Co-op boards have broad authority under the business judgment rule to approve or deny sales, impose assessments, and enforce house rules. But that authority has limits, and disputes arise when shareholders believe the board has acted in bad faith, exceeded its authority, or discriminated against a buyer or resident.
Condominium disputes, by contrast, are governed by the condominium’s declaration and bylaws and by the New York Condominium Act. Common issues include disputes over common charges, special assessments, maintenance obligations, and the scope of the board’s authority to make capital improvements. These cases require a thorough understanding of the governing documents and the statutory framework that applies to the specific type of ownership structure.
Title Disputes and Easements
Title disputes — including competing claims to ownership, boundary disputes, easement disputes, and challenges to the validity of recorded instruments — are among the most technically complex real estate matters. These cases often require a detailed examination of the chain of title, historical survey records, and the applicable recording statutes. In New York, the recording act is a race-notice statute, meaning that a subsequent bona fide purchaser for value who records first will prevail over a prior unrecorded interest, provided the subsequent purchaser had no actual or constructive notice of the prior interest.
Easement disputes are equally fact-intensive. Whether the issue involves an express easement, an easement by necessity, or a claim of prescriptive easement based on twenty years of continuous, open, and notorious use, the resolution depends on the specific history of the property and the conduct of the parties over time.
Protecting Your Interests in New York Real Estate
Real estate disputes in New York demand counsel who understands both the legal framework and the practical realities of the market. At Travis & DeBlase PLLC, we bring litigation experience and transactional judgment to every real estate matter we handle. Whether you are facing a breach of contract, a partnership dispute, or a title challenge, we work to protect your investment and resolve the matter as efficiently as the circumstances allow.
Contact us at (212) 940-7075 or visit travisdeblase.com/contact to schedule a consultation.