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.
DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, etc., Plaintiff–Appellant, v. SONIA GORDON, etc., Defendant–Respondent, David Golding, et al., Defendants.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Lucy Billings, J.), entered on or about April 29, 2010, which denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment dismissing defendant Gordon's defenses and counterclaim of fraud, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted.
By submitting proof of the existence of a mortgage and of default, plaintiff, as assignee of the lender, First Franklin Mortgage Loan Trust, established a prima facie case for foreclosure (Bank Leumi Trust Co. of N.Y. v. Lightning Park, 215 A.D.2d 246 [1995]; Chemical Bank v. Broadway 55–56th St. Assoc., 220 A.D.2d 308 [1995] ). In opposition, Gordon failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to plaintiff's knowledge of or involvement in fraud (see Citidress II v. 207 Second Ave. Realty Corp., 21 AD3d 774, 776–777 [2005]; Sinardi v. Rivera, 261 A.D.2d 388 [1999] ). Gordon does not allege that she had any contact with First Franklin, that First Franklin made any misrepresentation to her, or that she justifiably relied upon any misrepresentation by First Franklin (see Lama Holding Co. v. Smith Barney, 88 N.Y.2d 413, 421 [1996]; Peach Parking Corp. v. 346 W. 40th St., LLC, 42 AD3d 82, 87 [2007] ).
In addition, Gordon failed to establish any basis for a fact-finder to conclude that the brokers and mortgage company she alleges conspired against her were acting as First Franklin's agent in connection with the transaction. In any event, the brokers and mortgage company's commission of fraud could not be imputed to First Franklin because the alleged fraud required that the fact that Gordon was the true borrower be withheld from First Franklin (see G.E. Capital Mtge. Servs. v. Holbrooks, 245 A.D.2d 170, 171 [1997] ). Nor is there evidence to support a finding that First Franklin had constructive knowledge of any fraud or had a duty to make inquiry of the circumstances of the sale of the property and the issuance of the mortgage (see e.g. Thomas v. LaSalle Bank N.A., 79 AD3d 1015 [2010] ).
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: May 03, 2011
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)