The undeniable miracle at Fatima

[Jackalope]

However, the courts have ruled that if a seller is aware that the property has a reputation for being haunted, that is a fact germane to the buyer's decision that must be disclosed. The ruling isn't that ghosts are real, just that if the seller knows that a property has that reputation, it's both part of their disclosure responsibility and something that a building inspection won't turn up.

There was a relevant case in 1990 known as the 'Ghostbuster Case'. There was evidence that the seller was the source of the rumors that the house was haunted, so he was in a pickle when it came to claiming he didn't know it was haunted.

Read my response to CD about that case. The court did not rule non-disclosure as fraudulent. But the buyer was allowed to get his down payment back and get out of the contract. Sellers should be honest about what they know, but there are no laws on the books directing them to reveal whether or not their house is indeed haunted.

The brief itself from that case. Here's just a snippet from the first page of that briefing: 

While I agree with Supreme Court that the real estate broker, as agent for the seller, is under no duty to disclose to a potential buyer the phantasmal reputation of the premises and that, in his pursuit of a legal remedy for fraudulent misrepresentation against the seller, plaintiff hasn't a ghost of a chance, I am nevertheless moved by the spirit of equity to allow the buyer to seek rescission of the contract of sale and recovery of his down payment. New York law fails to recognize any remedy for damages incurred as a result of the seller's mere silence, applying instead the strict rule of caveat emptor. Therefore, the theoretical basis for granting relief, even under the extraordinary facts of this case, is elusive if not ephemeral.

bolding mine. 

See? No laws on the books in NY regarding disclosure of supernatural phenomenon.

Yet the appellate court found for the plaintiff.

You should have also quoted this.

It should be apparent, however, that the most meticulous inspection and the search would not reveal the presence of poltergeists at the premises or unearth the property's ghoulish reputation in the community. Therefore, there is no sound policy reason to deny plaintiff relief for failing to discover a state of affairs which the most prudent purchaser would not be expected to even contemplate (see, Da Silva v Musso, 53 N.Y.2d 543, 551).

Of course it's not on the books. It's common law.