Kluge v. Fugazy
| Decision Date | 19 December 1988 |
| Citation | 536 N.Y.S.2d 92,145 A.D.2d 537 |
| Parties | John W. KLUGE, Respondent, v. William D. FUGAZY, et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Lloyd L. Rosenthal, Poughkeepsie, for appellants.
Shea & Gould, New York City (Martin I. Shelton, Daniel L. Carroll and David G. Ebert, of counsel), for respondent.
Before MANGANO, J.P., and THOMPSON, BROWN and KUNZEMAN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In an action, inter alia, to foreclose a mortgage, the defendants William D. Fugazy, Fugazy Continental Corp., Travelco, Inc., Fugazy International Corp. and Fugazy Travel and Incentive Corp., appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Jiudice, J.), entered January 13, 1988, which denied their motion to dismiss the amended complaint for failure to state a cause of action and to vacate the plaintiff's notice of pendency.
ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion is granted.
As the result of a series of financial transactions, the plaintiff received an assignment of a mortgage as collateral security for a promise of indemnification. The underlying note was not assigned and was expressly excluded from transfer.
The plaintiff's first and second causes of action for foreclosure and a deficiency judgment, respectively, must fail since foreclosure of a mortgage may not be brought by one who has no title to it and absent transfer of the debt, the assignment of the mortgage is a nullity (Merritt v. Bartholick, 36 N.Y. 44, 45; Flyer v. Sullivan, 284 App.Div. 697, 698, 134 N.Y.S.2d 521; Beak v. Walts, 266 App.Div. 900, 42 N.Y.S.2d 652; Manne v. Carlson, 49 App.Div. 276, 278, 63 N.Y.S. 162). Moreover, we find that the written agreement and assignment between the parties were clear and unambiguous. They indicate that no delivery of the underlying obligation was intended, and they were entered into by sophisticated, counseled businessmen (see, Chimart Assocs. v. Paul, 66 N.Y.2d 570, 573, 498 N.Y.S.2d 344, 489 N.E.2d 231; Nau v. Vulcan Rail & Constr. Co., 286 N.Y. 188, 198-99, 36 N.E.2d 106, rearg. denied 287 N.Y. 630, 39 N.E.2d 267). As a result, the plaintiff's third cause of action, for specific performance, must fail.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Veal
...no title to it and absent transfer of the debt, the assignment of the mortgage is a nullity.’ ”) (quoting Kluge v. Fugazy, 145 A.D.2d 537, 536 N.Y.S.2d 92, 93 (N.Y.App.Div.1988)). In this case, Illinois law governs the issues related to the Mortgage's enforcement,32 and Illinois follows thi......
-
Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co. v. Pietranico
...to transfer the bond with the mortgage, the outcome may have been different.4 The Second Department, in Kluge v. Fugazy, 145 A.D.2d 537, 538, 536 N.Y.S.2d 92 (2d Dept. 1988) followed the rule set forth in Merritt v. Bartholick, supra, and addressed the issue of intent. As a result of a seri......
-
Deutsche Bank Trust Co. Am. v. Vitellas
...Barnett, 88 A.D.3d 636, 637, 931 N.Y.S.2d 630 ; U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Collymore, 68 A.D.3d 752, 754, 890 N.Y.S.2d 578 ; Kluge v. Fugazy, 145 A.D.2d 537, 538, 536 N.Y.S.2d 92 ; Flyer v. Sullivan, 284 App.Div. 697, 698, 134 N.Y.S.2d 521 ). A “mortgage is merely security for a debt or other oblig......
-
5-Star Management, Inc. v. Rogers, 95-CV-3121 (JS) (ETB).
...Arkansas law); Rockford Trust Co. v. Purtell, 183 Ark. 918, 39 S.W.2d 733, 736 (1931) (applying Arkansas law); Kluge v. Fugazy, 145 A.D.2d 537, 536 N.Y.S.2d 92, 93 (2d Dep't 1988) (applying New York law); Beak v. Walts, 266 A.D. 900, 42 N.Y.S.2d 652, 653 (4th Dep't 1943) (per curiam) (apply......