Essex v. Anderer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Essex v. Anderer

174 A.D.2d 647, 572 N.Y.S.2d 870, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9418

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

DecidedJune 17, 1991

StatusPublished

This text of 174 A.D.2d 647 (Essex v. Anderer) 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

Essex v. Anderer, 174 A.D.2d 647, 572 N.Y.S.2d 870, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9418 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages pursuant to Executive Law § 135 for misconduct by a notary public, the defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Cohalan, J.), dated December 6, 1989, as denied his cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Upon review of the record, we find that the court properly denied the defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment. A triable issue of fact exists as to whether he notarized a deed containing forged signatures resulting in a fraudulent conveyance of certain property upon which the plaintiff was induced to lend money. Mangano, P. J., Kooper, Harwood and Balletta, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages pursuant to Executive Law § 135 for misconduct by a notary public, the defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Cohalan, J.), dated December 6, 1989, as denied his cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Upon review of the record, we find that the court properly denied the defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment. A triable issue of fact exists as to whether he notarized a deed containing forged signatures resulting in a fraudulent conveyance of certain property upon which the plaintiff was induced to lend money. Mangano, P. J., Kooper, Harwood and Balletta, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

174 A.D.2d 647, 572 N.Y.S.2d 870, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9418, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/essex-v-anderer-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack