Matter of Solomon
This text of Matter of Solomon (Matter of Solomon) 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.
Opinion
It appears you are using Adblock. Please disable Adblock to best experience our website.
Bureau Thomas J.K. Smith, State Reporter
Matter of Solomon
2026 NY Slip Op 04423
July 15, 2026
Appellate Division, Second Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.
In the Matter of Agatha Solomon, deceased. Lois M. Rosenblatt, etc., petitioner-respondent; 29-11 Gillmore Street Funding Associates, appellant, et al., respondents. (File No. 3550/13)
Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
Decided on July 15, 2026
2021-05265
Francesca E. Connolly, J.P.
Linda Christopher
Barry E. Warhit
Elena Goldberg Velazquez, JJ.
Sherwood & Truitt Law Group, LLC, Garden City, NY (James P. Truitt III and Amy E. Abbandondelo of counsel), for appellant.
Sweeney, Reich & Bolz, LLP, Lake Success, NY (Gerard J. Sweeney of counsel), for petitioner-respondent.
DECISION & ORDER
In a proceeding for the administration of the estate of Agatha Solomon, in which Lois M. Rosenblatt, as temporary administrator of the estate of Agatha Solomon, petitioned, inter alia, to vacate two deeds purporting to convey certain real property, 29-11 Gillmore Street Funding Associates appeals from a decree of the Surrogate's Court, Queens County (Peter J. Kelly, S.), dated June 17, 2021. The decree, insofar as appealed from, upon an order of the same court dated December 5, 2019, inter alia, denying that branch of the motion of 29-11 Gillmore Street Funding Associates which was for summary judgment declaring that a certain consolidated mortgage is a valid lien against any interest in the subject property other than the intestate interest of George Thomas, declared that the consolidated mortgage is a valid lien only against the intestate interest of George Thomas in the subject property and is otherwise invalid.
ORDERED that the decree is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
At the time of her death in September 2000, Agatha Solomon (hereinafter the decedent) was the owner of unencumbered real property located in Queens (hereinafter the subject property). In September 2012, George Thomas, one of the decedent's nephews, filed a petition for letters of administration, which alleged that he was the decedent's sole distributee. Thereafter, Thomas filed an affidavit in which he renounced his application for letters of administration in favor of Shaun Sproul, identified as Thomas's "second cousin." In December 2013, the Surrogate's Court issued letters of administration appointing Sproul as the administrator of the decedent's estate.
On January 24, 2014, Sproul, as the administrator of the decedent's estate, executed a deed conveying the subject property to Thomas. That same day, Thomas executed a deed conveying the subject property to D & A Property Mgmt. & Development, LLC (hereinafter D & A Property), a company controlled by Sproul. Thereafter, D & A Property obtained two separate loans totaling $400,000, secured by mortgages on the subject property, which were later consolidated in favor of 29-11 Gillmore Street Funding Associates (hereinafter Funding Associates).
D & A Property defaulted on the consolidated mortgage, prompting Funding Associates to commence an action to foreclose the consolidated mortgage. Thomas subsequently filed a petition, inter alia, to revoke the letters of administration issued to Sproul. In the petition, Thomas admitted that the earlier petition for letters of administration and his affidavit of renunciation had falsely represented him as the sole heir of the decedent's estate, when the estate had more beneficiaries. In January 2018, the Surrogate's Court revoked the letters of administration issued to Sproul and appointed the Public Administrator of Queens County as the temporary administrator of the decedent's estate.
In January 2018, Lois M. Rosenblatt, the Public Administrator of Queens County, as temporary administrator of the decedent's estate, filed a petition to vacate the two deeds dated January 24, 2014, purporting to convey the subject property and the mortgages encumbering the subject property. In an order dated April 24, 2018, the Surrogate's Court granted those branches of the petition which were to vacate the two deeds and restored title to the subject property to the decedent's estate. The remaining branches of the petition were reserved and the proceeding adjourned.
Thereafter, Funding Associates moved, among other things, for summary judgment declaring that the consolidated mortgage is a valid lien against the subject property, arguing that Funding Associates was a bona fide encumbrancer for value. In an order dated December 5, 2019, the Surrogate's Court, inter alia, determined that the deed between Sproul and Thomas was void ab initio and, consequently, the consolidated mortgage was invalid to the extent it was based on the void deed, and denied that branch of Funding Associates' motion which was for summary judgment declaring that the consolidated mortgage is a valid lien against any interest in the subject property other than Thomas's intestate interest. In a decree dated June 17, 2021, the court, among other things, declared that the consolidated mortgage is a valid lien only against Thomas's intestate interest in the subject property and is otherwise invalid. Funding Associates appeals.
"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" (Matter of Raccioppi, 128 AD3d 838, 839). However, a person cannot be a bona fide purchaser or encumbrancer for value through a deed based on forgery or obtained by false pretenses, as such a deed is void and conveys no title (see Marden v Dorthy, 160 NY 39, 50; Matter of Bowser, 167 AD3d 1001, 1002; Cruz v Cruz, 37 AD3d 754). Consequently, a mortgage that is based on such a deed is likewise invalid (see Faison v Lewis, 25 NY3d 220, 225-226). Here, the letters of administration issued to Sproul were obtained under the false pretense that Thomas was the decedent's sole distributee and, thus, were void (see Matter of Bowser, 167 AD3d at 1002; Cruz v Cruz, 37 AD3d at 754). Consequently, the deed between Sproul, as purported administrator of the decedent's estate, and Thomas was null and void, and to the extent that the mortgages were based on that deed, they were invalid (see Matter of Bowser, 167 AD3d at 1002; Cruz v Cruz, 37 AD3d at 754; see also Selene Fin., L.P. v Jones, 203 AD3d 1191, 1194).
The parties' remaining contentions are either without merit or improperly raised for the first time on appeal.
CONNOLLY, J.P., CHRISTOPHER, WARHIT and GOLDBERG VELAZQUEZ, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Darrell M. Joseph
Clerk of the Court
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Matter of Solomon, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-solomon-nyappdiv-2026.