In the instant case, the signatures of Gregory Beckos and John Ruggiero are not forgeries. Petitioner argues that the misrepresentation that Gregory Beckos was the sole heir of Nympha establishes that the deed was "obtained by false pretenses" and void, citing Marden v Dorthy, 160 NY 39 [1899]; Jiles v Archer, 116 AD3d 664 [2d Dept 2014]; GMAC Mtge. Corp. v Chan, 56 AD3d 521 [2d Dept 2008]; Euba v Euba, 40 AD3d 689 [2d Dept 2007]; and Karan v Hopkins, 22 AD3d 638 [2d Dept 2005]).

In the instant case, the signatures of Gregory Beckos and John Ruggiero are not forgeries. Petitioner argues that the misrepresentation that Gregory Beckos was the sole heir of Nympha establishes that the deed was “obtained by false pretenses” and void, citing Marden v. Dorthy, 160 N.Y. 39 [1899] ; Jiles v. Archer, 116 AD3d 664 [2d Dept 2014] ; GMAC Mtge. Corp. v. Chan, 56 AD3d 521 [2d Dept 2008] ; Euba v. Euba, 40 AD3d 689 [2d Dept 2007] ; and Karan v. Hopkins, 22 AD3d 638 [2d Dept 2005] ). Gregory Beckos argues that such a result contradicts Real Property Law § 245 and settled case law that a deed purporting to grant a greater interest in real property than the grantor had was still effective in transferring the interest that he did have, citing Real Property Law § 245 and Thompson v. Simpson (128 N.Y. 270 [1891] ). Real Property Law § 245 provides, in pertinent part,

EMC maintains that it is a good faith holder and bona fide lender for value without knowledge or complicity of the fraud alleged in the complaint. It is well established that the remedy of rescission of a deed and a concomitant cancellation of a mortgage is available to a claimant where it is established that the deed was either forged or obtained under false pretenses (fraud in the factum) or fraudulently induced ( Wells Fargo Bank, NA v. Edsall, 22 Misc.3d 1113[A], 880 N.Y.S.2d 877 [Sup Ct Suffolk County 2009], citing Euba v. Euba, 40 AD3d 689, 835 N.Y.S.2d 688 [2d Dept 2007] and Betz v. N.Y.C. Premiere Prop., Inc., 38 AD3d 815, 833 N.Y.S.2d 153 [2d Dept 2007] and Cruz v. Cruz, 37 AD3d 754, 832 N.Y.S.2d 217 [2d Dept 2007] ). A deed obtained by forgery or false pretenses is void ab initio and a mortgage obtained based on such a deed is likewise invalid (GMAC Mtge. v. Chan, 56 AD3d 521, 867 N.Y.S.2d 204 [2d Dept 2008]; Karan v. Hoskins, 22 AD3d 638, 803 N.Y.S.2d 666 [2d Dept 2005] ).

EMC maintains that it is a good faith holder and bona fide lender for value without knowledge or complicity of the fraud alleged in the complaint. It is well established that the remedy of rescission of a deed and a concomitant cancellation of a mortgage is available to a claimant where it is established that the deed was either forged or obtained under false pretenses (fraud in the factum) or fraudulently induced (Wells Fargo Bank, NA vEdsall, 22 Misc 3d 1113[A], 880 NYS2d 877 [Sup Ct Suffolk County 2009], citing Euba v Euba, 40 AD3d 689, 835 NYS2d 688 [2d Dept 2007] and Betz v N.Y.C. Premiere Prop., Inc., 38 AD3d 815, 833 NYS2d 153 [2d Dept 2007] and Cruz v Cruz, 37 AD3d 754, 832 NYS2d 217 [2d Dept 2007]). A deed obtained by forgery or false pretenses is void ab initio and a mortgage obtained based on such a deed is likewise invalid (GMAC Mtge. v Chan, 56 AD3d 521, 867 NYS2d 204 [2d Dept 2008]; Karan v Hoskins, 22 AD3d 638, 803 NYS2d 666 [2d Dept 2005]).

For the reasons set forth below, this motion is denied. It is well established that the remedy of recision of a deed and a concomitant cancellation of a mortgage issued on the premises conveyed by such deed at the time of such conveyance is available to a claimant in cases wherein it is established that such deed was either forged, obtained under false pretenses (fraud in the factum) or fraudulently induced ( seeEuba v Euba, 40 AD3d 689, 835 NYS2d 688 [2d Dept 2007]; Betzv N.Y.C. Premiere Prop., Inc., 38 AD3d 815, 833 NYS2d 153 [2d Dept 2007]; Cruz v Cruz, 37 AD3d 754, 832 NYS2d 217 [2d Dept 2007]). Consequently, a victim of a mortgage rescue scam that results in a conveyance of said victim's home which is immediately encumbered by a purchase money mortgage issued in connection with such conveyance may have a defense to a mortgage foreclosure action commenced by the purchase money mortgagee or its assignee against the mortgagor who either forged or fraudulently induced the conveyance ( seeGMAC Mtg. Corp. v Chan, 56 AD2d 521, 867 NYS2d 204 [2d Dept 2008]; Karan v Hoskins, 22 AD3d 638, 803 NYS2d 666 [2d Dept 2005]); Watson v Melnikoff, 19 Misc 3d 1130 (A), 866 NYS2d 96 [Kings County, Supreme Ct., Demarest, J., 2008]).