Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
James V. WELCH, Plaintiff-Appellant, et al., Plaintiffs, v. James Di BLASI, Rosemary Di Blasi, Donner Properties, Inc., Harris Hill Farms, Inc., and 8060 Wolcott Road, Inc., Defendants-Respondents.
Supreme Court properly denied the motion of James V. Welch (plaintiff) to strike defendants' answer and counterclaims based on the doctrine of unclean hands. Contrary to defendants' contention, plaintiff did not waive the right to assert that doctrine by failing to plead it as an affirmative defense (see, Richards v. Levy, 40 A.D.2d 1055, 1055-1056, 338 N.Y.S.2d 929). We agree with defendants, however, that the doctrine of unclean hands does not apply here. Under that doctrine, “one who has executed an agreement to perpetrate a fraud has ‘forfeited his right, in law or equity, to protection or recourse in a dispute involving his accomplices in that very scheme’ ” (Smith v. Long, 281 A.D.2d 897, 898, 723 N.Y.S.2d 584, quoting Ta Chun Wang v. Chun Wong, 163 A.D.2d 300, 302, 557 N.Y.S.2d 434, lv. denied 77 N.Y.2d 804, 568 N.Y.S.2d 912, 571 N.E.2d 82, cert. denied 501 U.S. 1252, 111 S.Ct. 2893, 115 L.Ed.2d 1058). In addition, the doctrine is applicable only “when the conduct relied on is directly related to the subject matter in litigation and the party seeking to invoke the doctrine was injured by such conduct” (Weiss v. Mayflower Doughnut Corp., 1 N.Y.2d 310, 316, 152 N.Y.S.2d 471, 135 N.E.2d 208; see, Agati v. Agati, 92 A.D.2d 737, 738, 461 N.Y.S.2d 95, affd. 59 N.Y.2d 830, 464 N.Y.S.2d 743, 451 N.E.2d 490; Mehlman v. Avrech, 146 A.D.2d 753, 754, 537 N.Y.S.2d 236). Plaintiff, a judgment creditor of defendant James Di Blasi, alleges that defendant Rosemary Di Blasi made fraudulent statements on a mortgage application and that James conspired with Rosemary to do so. Plaintiff was not an accomplice in the alleged fraud and did not rely on the allegedly fraudulent conduct, and plaintiff's action relates to many properties that were not the subject matter of the alleged fraud. Additionally, plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that he was injured by the allegedly false statements made by Rosemary on the mortgage application.
Order unanimously affirmed without costs.
MEMORANDUM:
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: December 21, 2001
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)