Public Administrator of Kings County v. Samerson
| Decision Date | 21 October 2002 |
| Citation | 750 N.Y.S.2d 301,298 A.D.2d 512 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
| Parties | PUBLIC ADMINISTRATOR OF KINGS COUNTY, Appellant,<BR>v.<BR>EVANS SAMERSON, Appellant,<BR>EIFFEL MANAGEMENT CORP. et al., Defendants, and<BR>CAROLYN E. BURGESS et al., Respondents. |
Ordered that the order dated June 8, 2001, is reversed insofar as reviewed, without costs or disbursements, and upon renewal and reargument, so much of the order entered March 23, 2001, as granted the motion of the defendants Carolyn E. Burgess and Chase Manhattan Mortgage Corporation for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them is vacated, the motion is denied, and the complaint is reinstated insofar as asserted against those defendants.
The plaintiff contends, inter alia, that the defendant Evans Samerson fraudulently obtained an interest in property owned by the deceased Melbourne Smith. After Smith's death, Samerson allegedly conveyed the subject property to the defendant Eiffel Management Corp. (hereinafter Eiffel). The defendant Carolyn Burgess purchased the property from Eiffel, and the defendant Chase Manhattan Mortgage Corporation (hereinafter Chase) obtained a mortgage on the property. Burgess and Chase moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them on the ground that they were, respectively, a bona fide purchaser and encumbrancer for value, and the Supreme Court granted the motion.
Pursuant to Real Property Law § 266, a bona fide purchaser or encumbrancer for value is protected in his or her title unless he or she had previous notice of the alleged prior fraud by the seller (see Anderson v Blood, 152 NY 285; Miner v Edwards, 221 AD2d 934; Emerson Hills Realty v Mirabella, 220 AD2d 717). However, a person cannot be a bona fide purchaser or encumbrancer for value through a forged deed, as it is void and conveys no title (see Marden v Dorthy, 160 NY 39; Yin Wu v Wu, 288 AD2d 104; Kraker v Roll, 100 AD2d 424, 430-431).
Although Burgess and Chase made a prima facie showing on their ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Erler v. Creative Finance & Investments
...the grantor whose signature is not genuine. McWilliams, 228 Mont. at 308, 743 P.2d at 584; see also Pub. Adminstr. Kings County v. Samerson, 298 A.D.2d 512, 750 N.Y.S.2d 301, 302 (2002) ("a person cannot be a bona fide purchaser for value through a forged deed, as it is void and conveys no ......
-
ABN Amro Mortg. Grp., Inc. v. Stephens
...v. Ally, 39 A.D.3d 597, 600, 835 N.Y.S.2d 264; Karan v. Hoskins, 22 A.D.3d 638, 639, 803 N.Y.S.2d 666; Public Adm'r of Kings County v. Samerson, 298 A.D.2d 512, 513, 750 N.Y.S.2d 301; Yin Wu v. Wu, 288 A.D.2d 104, 105, 733 N.Y.S.2d 45; Kraker v. Roll, 100 A.D.2d 424, 430, 474 N.Y.S.2d 527).......
-
Clogher v. Modeste (In re Raccioppi)
...a forged deed, as it is void and conveys no title (see Marden v. Dorthy, 160 N.Y. 39, 54 N.E. 726 ; Public Adm'r of Kings County v. Samerson, 298 A.D.2d 512, 514, 750 N.Y.S.2d 301 ). Although the respondents made a prima facie showing that they were bona fide purchasers, the petitioner rais......
-
LIDO REALTY LLC V. 67-79 LLC
...be a bona fide purchaser... for value through a forged deed, as it is void and conveys no title." Public Administrator of Kings County v. Samerson, 298 A.D.2d 512, 513 (2d Dept. 2002). Where, as here, "the deed is a false, fictitious and forged instrument", it is "invalid and void for any p......