Eisen v. Fisher

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Eisen v. Fisher

65 A.D.2d 781, 410 N.Y.S.2d 332, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13634

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedNovember 20, 1978

StatusPublished

This text of 65 A.D.2d 781 (Eisen v. Fisher) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Eisen v. Fisher, 65 A.D.2d 781, 410 N.Y.S.2d 332, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13634 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County, entered July 3, 1978, as denied his motion for summary judgment against defendants Fisher. Order reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with $50 costs and disbursements, and motion granted. Plaintiff is the mortgagee on a mortgage in the face amount of $20,000 executed by respondents. The mortgage was given to plaintiff, as nominee, as security for a loan for the benefit of respondent Bernard Fisher. Respondents defaulted on the loan and plaintiff brought this action to foreclose the mortgage. Respondents opposed plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, asserting the defense of fraud in the inducement. The "fraud” was an alleged oral promise by plaintiff that he would not record the mortgage. Respondents claim that they would never have given the mortgage but for that "fraudulent inducement”. There is no merit to the defense of fraud in the inducement. Respondents have not alleged and proved that the fraud complained of resulted in any injury to them (see Urtz v New York Cent. & Hudson Riv. R. R. Co., 202 NY 170; 24 NY Jur, Fraud and Deceit, § 14). We also find no merit in respondents’ other contentions. Mollen, P. J., Latham, Damiani and Titone, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County, entered July 3, 1978, as denied his motion for summary judgment against defendants Fisher. Order reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with $50 costs and disbursements, and motion granted. Plaintiff is the mortgagee on a mortgage in the face amount of $20,000 executed by respondents. The mortgage was given to plaintiff, as nominee, as security for a loan for the benefit of respondent Bernard Fisher. Respondents defaulted on the loan and plaintiff brought this action to foreclose the mortgage. Respondents opposed plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, asserting the defense of fraud in the inducement. The "fraud” was an alleged oral promise by plaintiff that he would not record the mortgage. Respondents claim that they would never have given the mortgage but for that "fraudulent inducement”. There is no merit to the defense of fraud in the inducement. Respondents have not alleged and proved that the fraud complained of resulted in any injury to them (see Urtz v New York Cent. & Hudson Riv. R. R. Co., 202 NY 170; 24 NY Jur, Fraud and Deceit, § 14). We also find no merit in respondents’ other contentions. Mollen, P. J., Latham, Damiani and Titone, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

65 A.D.2d 781, 410 N.Y.S.2d 332, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13634, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eisen-v-fisher-nyappdiv-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack