Gutman v. Savas

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gutman v. Savas

294 A.D.2d 124, 742 N.Y.S.2d 12, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5303

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

DecidedMay 7, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 294 A.D.2d 124 (Gutman v. Savas) 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

Gutman v. Savas, 294 A.D.2d 124, 742 N.Y.S.2d 12, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5303 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Barry Salman, J.), entered April 18, 2001, which denied defendants building owners’ motion for partial summary judgment with respect to so much of the action as involves the validity of certain mortgages they gave to plaintiff building manager, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

We reject defendants’ argument that plaintiff’s deposition establishes that the mortgages were gifts and lacked adequate consideration. Plaintiff testified that she did not know and never asked defendants how they determined the amounts of the mortgages they “voluntarily” gave her, and that she understood that the mortgages were not to be recorded. However, she also testified that' she sometimes paid building expenses with her own money, and indicated that defendants, in recognition of their problematic financial circumstances, gave her the mortgages to secure payment of such advances both past and future as well as her services. Such testimony raises an issue of fact as to whether consideration adequate to support a mortgage passed from plaintiff to defendants (see, 77 NY Jur 2d, Mortgages and Deeds of Trust §§48, 49, 68). The fact that the mortgages were not to be recorded does not affect their validity as between the parties (see, id. § 113, at 500). Concur—Williams, P.J., Nardelli, Saxe, Rosenberger and Mar-low, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Barry Salman, J.), entered April 18, 2001, which denied defendants building owners’ motion for partial summary judgment with respect to so much of the action as involves the validity of certain mortgages they gave to plaintiff building manager, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

We reject defendants’ argument that plaintiff’s deposition establishes that the mortgages were gifts and lacked adequate consideration. Plaintiff testified that she did not know and never asked defendants how they determined the amounts of the mortgages they “voluntarily” gave her, and that she understood that the mortgages were not to be recorded. However, she also testified that' she sometimes paid building expenses with her own money, and indicated that defendants, in recognition of their problematic financial circumstances, gave her the mortgages to secure payment of such advances both past and future as well as her services. Such testimony raises an issue of fact as to whether consideration adequate to support a mortgage passed from plaintiff to defendants (see, 77 NY Jur 2d, Mortgages and Deeds of Trust §§48, 49, 68). The fact that the mortgages were not to be recorded does not affect their validity as between the parties (see, id. § 113, at 500). Concur—Williams, P.J., Nardelli, Saxe, Rosenberger and Mar-low, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

294 A.D.2d 124, 742 N.Y.S.2d 12, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5303, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gutman-v-savas-nyappdiv-2002.