Pfanner v Anderson 2024 NY Slip Op 32576(U) July 25, 2024 Supreme Court, Kings County Docket Number: Index No. 509789/2024 Judge: Leon Ruchelsman Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 07/25/2024 11:47 AM INDEX NO. 509789/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 155 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/25/2024
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS : CIVIL TERM: COMMERCIAL 8 . - - - - .-- ·._· ----· ·-·-------·-.-- ·-. -·--· - - - - - - - · X ANDREAS PFANNER, indiViduall.y and in the right of POK 325 MAIN, LLC, Plaintiff, Decision and order
- against - Index No. 509789/2024
ERIC GUSTAVE ANDERSON, URBAN GREEN EQUITIES, LLC, POK MILL HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FUND CORPORATION, POK 325 MAIN LLC, WALLACE CAMPUS MANAGER LLC; Defendants, July 25, 2024 ---- --- ---- --------- ·. --- - ~ ----~-x PRESENT: HON. LEON RUCHELSMAN Motion Seq. #5 & #8
The defendant Wallace Campus Manager LLC [hereinafter
'Wallace'] has moved pursuant to CPLR §3211 seeking to dismiss the
amended complaint as it pertains to them. The plaintiff has moved
seeking: to re argue a vat.atur o.f a temporary restraining order. The
motions. have been opposed respectively. Papers were submitted by
the parties after reviewing all the arguments this court now makes
the following determination.
According to the amended complaint th,e defendant Eric Gustave
Aride:rson sold property located at 325 Main Street Poughkeepsier New
York. The plaintiff ~sserts the property was owned by Pfanner and
Anderson, through entities they own together. The amended
complaint seeks to set aside that sale oh the grounds it occurred
without the p1ai-ntiff' s knowledge or con::.icerit. Wailace has now
rri:oved seeking to dismiss ali thE:i causes of action on the grounds they fail fo aJlege any facts necessary to support the allegations.
1 of 5 [* 1] FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 07/25/2024 11:47 AM INDEX NO. 509789/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 155 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/25/2024
Conclusions of Law
It is well settled that upon a motion to dismiss the court
must determine, accepting the allegations of. the complaint as true,
whether the party can succeed upon any reasonable view of those
facts {Perez v. Y & M Transportation Corporation, 219 AD3d 1449,
196 NYS3d 145 [2d Dept., 2023]). Further, all the allegations in
the complaint are deemed true and all reasonable inferences may be drawn in favor of the plaintiff (Archival Inc., v. 177 Realty
Corp., 220 AD3d 909, 198 NYS2d 567 [2d Dept., 2023]), Whether the
complaint will later survive a motion for summary judgment, or
whether the plaintiff will ultimately be able to prove its claims,
of course, plays no part in the determination of a pre'-discovery
CPLR §3211 motion to dismiss ( ~ , Lam v. Weiss, 219 AD3d 713, 195
NYS3d 488 [2d Dept., 2023]).
Hercules Argyriou, a representative of Wallace submitted an
affidavit and asserts that POK 325 Main LLC represented itself as
the sole owner of the property and that defendant Andersoh, who
signed on beh.alf of the corporate entity had the authority to
execute the contract. Thus, Wallace ins,ists they are good faith
purchasers and the lawsuit as to them must b_e dismissed. 'I'he
plaintiff presents numerous arguments why the sale to Wallace
shoold be voided. First, tr:i.at Wallace knew Pfanner was an owner of
the corp6ra,te entity a.:h.d should have known that Anders.on did not
have sole authority to enter into the contract. Further, the
2 of 5 [* 2] FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 07/25/2024 11:47 AM INDEX NO. 509789/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 155 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/25/2024
plaintiff argues Wallace participated in the sale knowing of
Pf anner' s interests and ignoring them to Anderson' s benefit.
However, it is well settled that an '' intended purchaser must be
presumed to have investigated the title, and to have examined every-
deed or instrument properly recorded, and to have known every fact
disclosed or to which an inquiry suggested by the record would have
led" (Fairmont Funding Ltd., v. Stefansky, 301 AD2d 562, 754 NYS2d 54 (2d Dept., 2003]). "If the purchaser fails to use due diligence
in exan'fining the title, he or she is chargeable, as a matter of
law, with notice of the facts which a proper inquiry would have
disclosed'' (id) .
In this case there are no inquiries or investigations which
Wallace should have undertaken. Wallace was presented with a
contract and all the indicia of ownership on the part of POK 325
Main LLC and Anderson. There was no basis for Wa.llace to wonder
and then inquire whether Anderson, in fact, had the authority to
engage in the sale or to engage in further diligence (cf. , Emigrant
Bank v. Drimmer, 171 AD3d 1132; 99 NYS3d 79 [2d Dept., 2019]).
Thus, the affidavit of Mr, Argyriou unmistakably demonstrate that
Wallace had no knowledge of Pfanher, had ho reason to have
l<.nowledge of Pfanner and did not fail to exercise due diligence by
not making ariy further inquiries. Therefore, Wallace was a bona
tide purchaser aa a maiter of iaw.
The plaintiff argues that Wallace :received the p.to_[)erty
through Anderson's fraudulent means. It is true. that one cannot be
a bol'.1a fide purch,aser through a forged deed and that such forged
3 of 5 [* 3] FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 07/25/2024 11:47 AM INDEX NO. 509789/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 155 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/25/2024
deed does not convey title ( Public Administrato r of Kings .Co-o.nty v.
·Evans., 2 98 AD2d 51:2., 750 ·NYS.2:d 301 I2d P~pt., 2.Q02J}. In Faison v.
Lewis; 25 NY~d 220, lO NYS3d 185. [ZO·lS] the· Court of Appeals
explained that .a deed that contains a forged signature is a
.:traudul.ent de.ed whicl:;l conveys. no title. Boweve·r; a deed "·where the
signature an,d authority for ccinveyahce are acquired by fraudulent
means·r, is voidable· and does· convey :good ·t{ tle. The coµrt sta:ted
that ·a deed ·containing the t i tie holder'$. actual. signature reflE)ct.s
"the as.sent of the. wili to th.e use of the paper or the transfer,
.althqugh it is ,assent induced by fraud mistake or ·•misplaced
·COrlfidence" .(id).. Con$equently , such a de:ed '\·clotheq with al;:L the
evidences 0£ good titlE:i, may iricumber the property to a party who
become·s a purchas·er in good f a.ith;, t id) . The,re·fore, in Shau Chung
Hu v. Lowbet Realty Corp., 1.61 AD~d 986, 78 NYS3d 150 [2d Dept..,
2018] the court held an individual who executed a deed obtained by
fraudul.erit means· ·could .eomtey. the deed to· the l;:,ona fide pp,rchase .rs
sine~ there was no allegation :the individual's signature was
forged~
Likewise, in. this .caset there. is ho allegation Andersciri's
~ignature was forged, rather that he lacked authority to transfer
the p..roperty to Wallace.. Even if t.rue; and Pfanner can pursue such
cla.iins against Anderson, that does not render the deed. void., making
possession: by Wallace unlawful. Rath.er, Wallace, ··maintains valid
title since such title was obtained by them from. Ande,tson wpq, it
is alleg.ed, only utilized fraudulent means to ol:itain any authority
hi1Tis.elf ..
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Pfanner v Anderson 2024 NY Slip Op 32576(U) July 25, 2024 Supreme Court, Kings County Docket Number: Index No. 509789/2024 Judge: Leon Ruchelsman Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 07/25/2024 11:47 AM INDEX NO. 509789/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 155 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/25/2024
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS : CIVIL TERM: COMMERCIAL 8 . - - - - .-- ·._· ----· ·-·-------·-.-- ·-. -·--· - - - - - - - · X ANDREAS PFANNER, indiViduall.y and in the right of POK 325 MAIN, LLC, Plaintiff, Decision and order
- against - Index No. 509789/2024
ERIC GUSTAVE ANDERSON, URBAN GREEN EQUITIES, LLC, POK MILL HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FUND CORPORATION, POK 325 MAIN LLC, WALLACE CAMPUS MANAGER LLC; Defendants, July 25, 2024 ---- --- ---- --------- ·. --- - ~ ----~-x PRESENT: HON. LEON RUCHELSMAN Motion Seq. #5 & #8
The defendant Wallace Campus Manager LLC [hereinafter
'Wallace'] has moved pursuant to CPLR §3211 seeking to dismiss the
amended complaint as it pertains to them. The plaintiff has moved
seeking: to re argue a vat.atur o.f a temporary restraining order. The
motions. have been opposed respectively. Papers were submitted by
the parties after reviewing all the arguments this court now makes
the following determination.
According to the amended complaint th,e defendant Eric Gustave
Aride:rson sold property located at 325 Main Street Poughkeepsier New
York. The plaintiff ~sserts the property was owned by Pfanner and
Anderson, through entities they own together. The amended
complaint seeks to set aside that sale oh the grounds it occurred
without the p1ai-ntiff' s knowledge or con::.icerit. Wailace has now
rri:oved seeking to dismiss ali thE:i causes of action on the grounds they fail fo aJlege any facts necessary to support the allegations.
1 of 5 [* 1] FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 07/25/2024 11:47 AM INDEX NO. 509789/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 155 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/25/2024
Conclusions of Law
It is well settled that upon a motion to dismiss the court
must determine, accepting the allegations of. the complaint as true,
whether the party can succeed upon any reasonable view of those
facts {Perez v. Y & M Transportation Corporation, 219 AD3d 1449,
196 NYS3d 145 [2d Dept., 2023]). Further, all the allegations in
the complaint are deemed true and all reasonable inferences may be drawn in favor of the plaintiff (Archival Inc., v. 177 Realty
Corp., 220 AD3d 909, 198 NYS2d 567 [2d Dept., 2023]), Whether the
complaint will later survive a motion for summary judgment, or
whether the plaintiff will ultimately be able to prove its claims,
of course, plays no part in the determination of a pre'-discovery
CPLR §3211 motion to dismiss ( ~ , Lam v. Weiss, 219 AD3d 713, 195
NYS3d 488 [2d Dept., 2023]).
Hercules Argyriou, a representative of Wallace submitted an
affidavit and asserts that POK 325 Main LLC represented itself as
the sole owner of the property and that defendant Andersoh, who
signed on beh.alf of the corporate entity had the authority to
execute the contract. Thus, Wallace ins,ists they are good faith
purchasers and the lawsuit as to them must b_e dismissed. 'I'he
plaintiff presents numerous arguments why the sale to Wallace
shoold be voided. First, tr:i.at Wallace knew Pfanner was an owner of
the corp6ra,te entity a.:h.d should have known that Anders.on did not
have sole authority to enter into the contract. Further, the
2 of 5 [* 2] FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 07/25/2024 11:47 AM INDEX NO. 509789/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 155 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/25/2024
plaintiff argues Wallace participated in the sale knowing of
Pf anner' s interests and ignoring them to Anderson' s benefit.
However, it is well settled that an '' intended purchaser must be
presumed to have investigated the title, and to have examined every-
deed or instrument properly recorded, and to have known every fact
disclosed or to which an inquiry suggested by the record would have
led" (Fairmont Funding Ltd., v. Stefansky, 301 AD2d 562, 754 NYS2d 54 (2d Dept., 2003]). "If the purchaser fails to use due diligence
in exan'fining the title, he or she is chargeable, as a matter of
law, with notice of the facts which a proper inquiry would have
disclosed'' (id) .
In this case there are no inquiries or investigations which
Wallace should have undertaken. Wallace was presented with a
contract and all the indicia of ownership on the part of POK 325
Main LLC and Anderson. There was no basis for Wa.llace to wonder
and then inquire whether Anderson, in fact, had the authority to
engage in the sale or to engage in further diligence (cf. , Emigrant
Bank v. Drimmer, 171 AD3d 1132; 99 NYS3d 79 [2d Dept., 2019]).
Thus, the affidavit of Mr, Argyriou unmistakably demonstrate that
Wallace had no knowledge of Pfanher, had ho reason to have
l<.nowledge of Pfanner and did not fail to exercise due diligence by
not making ariy further inquiries. Therefore, Wallace was a bona
tide purchaser aa a maiter of iaw.
The plaintiff argues that Wallace :received the p.to_[)erty
through Anderson's fraudulent means. It is true. that one cannot be
a bol'.1a fide purch,aser through a forged deed and that such forged
3 of 5 [* 3] FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 07/25/2024 11:47 AM INDEX NO. 509789/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 155 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/25/2024
deed does not convey title ( Public Administrato r of Kings .Co-o.nty v.
·Evans., 2 98 AD2d 51:2., 750 ·NYS.2:d 301 I2d P~pt., 2.Q02J}. In Faison v.
Lewis; 25 NY~d 220, lO NYS3d 185. [ZO·lS] the· Court of Appeals
explained that .a deed that contains a forged signature is a
.:traudul.ent de.ed whicl:;l conveys. no title. Boweve·r; a deed "·where the
signature an,d authority for ccinveyahce are acquired by fraudulent
means·r, is voidable· and does· convey :good ·t{ tle. The coµrt sta:ted
that ·a deed ·containing the t i tie holder'$. actual. signature reflE)ct.s
"the as.sent of the. wili to th.e use of the paper or the transfer,
.althqugh it is ,assent induced by fraud mistake or ·•misplaced
·COrlfidence" .(id).. Con$equently , such a de:ed '\·clotheq with al;:L the
evidences 0£ good titlE:i, may iricumber the property to a party who
become·s a purchas·er in good f a.ith;, t id) . The,re·fore, in Shau Chung
Hu v. Lowbet Realty Corp., 1.61 AD~d 986, 78 NYS3d 150 [2d Dept..,
2018] the court held an individual who executed a deed obtained by
fraudul.erit means· ·could .eomtey. the deed to· the l;:,ona fide pp,rchase .rs
sine~ there was no allegation :the individual's signature was
forged~
Likewise, in. this .caset there. is ho allegation Andersciri's
~ignature was forged, rather that he lacked authority to transfer
the p..roperty to Wallace.. Even if t.rue; and Pfanner can pursue such
cla.iins against Anderson, that does not render the deed. void., making
possession: by Wallace unlawful. Rath.er, Wallace, ··maintains valid
title since such title was obtained by them from. Ande,tson wpq, it
is alleg.ed, only utilized fraudulent means to ol:itain any authority
hi1Tis.elf .. In tpese circumstance·; :;, if· true·,. Anderson .maintained
4 of 5 [* 4] FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 07/25/2024 11:47 AM INDEX NO. 509789/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 155 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/25/2024
voidablE; title and thus Wallace obta-ined good title.
For these reasons the motion seeking to reargue the dismissal
of the restraining order is denied. Even if Anderson 'Was also a
member of a Wallace entity such knowledge would not remove
Wallace's status as a bona fide purchaser. Further, the plaintiff
does not maintain any individual interests in the actual corporate
property and therefore cannot seek to restrain any such prope-rty (Gross v. Neiman, 147 AD3d 505, 48 NYS3d 29 [Pt Dept., 2017]).
Therefore, the plaintiff cannot restrain Wallace's ability to
utilize the property. Any claims the plaintiff has regarding the
value of such property are claims on directed against Anderson.
Therefore, the causes of action that pertain to Wallace are
all dismissed and the motion by Wallace. seeking to dismiss all the claims is granted. The motion seeking to rearglie the disrnissal of
the restraining order is denied.
So ordered.
ENTER:
DATED~ July 25, 2024 Brooklyn N.Y. Hon. Leon: Ruchelsmari JSC
5 of 5 [* 5]