New York Law (NYLE) Practice Exam

Is Thomas considered an innocent purchaser for value regarding the property purchased after the notice of pendency?

1. Yes, because Thomas purchased the home after the notice of pendency expired.

2. Yes, because the notice of pendency was filed after the action commenced.

3. No, because Thomas purchased the home before the notice of pendency expired.

4. No, because the notice of pendency was filed one month after the action commenced.

The correct answer is: No, because Thomas purchased the home before the notice of pendency expired.

In evaluating whether Thomas is considered an innocent purchaser for value in relation to the property purchased after the notice of pendency, it is essential to understand the implications of a notice of pendency under New York law. A notice of pendency serves as a public warning that an action affecting the title to or possession of the property is pending. When a notice of pendency is filed, any subsequent purchaser, like Thomas, is deemed to have constructive notice of the pending action. This means that whether or not Thomas was aware of the complaint, he cannot claim "innocent purchaser" status if he acquires the property while the notice is active. In this scenario, since Thomas purchased the home while the notice of pendency was still in effect (meaning it had not yet expired), he is not considered an innocent purchaser for value. The law effectively protects interested parties by ensuring they are aware of potential claims against the property. Thus, Thomas purchasing the property before the notice of pendency expired results in him having sufficient notice of the action, and he cannot assert that he purchased in good faith without knowledge of the ongoing legal claim. The other choices misinterpret the timing and implications of the notice of pendency, leading to misunderstandings about what constitutes