Hazim v. Dross

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hazim v. Dross

2 A.D.3d 268, 768 N.Y.S.2d 331, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13315

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

DecidedDecember 16, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 2 A.D.3d 268 (Hazim v. Dross) 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

Hazim v. Dross, 2 A.D.3d 268, 768 N.Y.S.2d 331, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13315 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Bertram Katz, J), entered June 13, 2003, which denied Delta Funding Corporation’s motion for summary judgment and granted plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment canceling the mortgage and purported deed and barring defendants from asserting any claims against the property, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court properly determined that plaintiff was not estopped from denying the validity of the mortgage (see Marden v Dorthy, 160 NY 39 [1899]; Filowick v Long, 201 AD2d 893 [269]*269[1994]), since she did not remain silent after learning of the fraudulent 1986 deed or otherwise engage in conduct that enabled defendant Dross to perpetrate the fraud on defendant Delta Funding. Contrary to Delta Funding’s contention, any negligence on the part of plaintiffs prior counsel in failing to correct the records in the Register’s Office after the 1988 action should not, under the circumstances, be imputed to her for purposes of estoppel (see Feliberty v Damon, 72 NY2d 112, 117 [1988]). Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Saxe, Friedman, Marlow and Gonzalez, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Bertram Katz, J), entered June 13, 2003, which denied Delta Funding Corporation’s motion for summary judgment and granted plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment canceling the mortgage and purported deed and barring defendants from asserting any claims against the property, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court properly determined that plaintiff was not estopped from denying the validity of the mortgage (see Marden v Dorthy, 160 NY 39 [1899]; Filowick v Long, 201 AD2d 893 [269]*269[1994]), since she did not remain silent after learning of the fraudulent 1986 deed or otherwise engage in conduct that enabled defendant Dross to perpetrate the fraud on defendant Delta Funding. Contrary to Delta Funding’s contention, any negligence on the part of plaintiffs prior counsel in failing to correct the records in the Register’s Office after the 1988 action should not, under the circumstances, be imputed to her for purposes of estoppel (see Feliberty v Damon, 72 NY2d 112, 117 [1988]). Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Saxe, Friedman, Marlow and Gonzalez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 A.D.3d 268, 768 N.Y.S.2d 331, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13315, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hazim-v-dross-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack