From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Dime Savings Bank v. Ogle

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 24, 1994
202 A.D.2d 336 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)

Opinion

March 24, 1994

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (James Shaw, J.).


We agree with the IAS Court that appellant's evidence does not provide a defense to plaintiff's cause of action for foreclosure. Codefendant James Ogle's testimony that he had been involved in sale-leasebacks with other people did not suggest plaintiff's involvement in these other transactions, but merely that plaintiff was just another of Ogle's victims, and indeed such was the finding of the court in defendant Taylor's fraud action against Ogle. Given the evidence that plaintiff too was a victim of Ogle's fraud, it is pure speculation for appellant to argue that wrongdoing on plaintiff's part is indicated by the fact that plaintiff gave appellant's check to Ogle.

Concur — Wallach, J.P., Ross, Rubin, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.


Summaries of

Dime Savings Bank v. Ogle

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 24, 1994
202 A.D.2d 336 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
Case details for

Dime Savings Bank v. Ogle

Case Details

Full title:DIME SAVINGS BANK OF NEW YORK, F.S.B., Respondent, v. CECIL C. OGLE et…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Mar 24, 1994

Citations

202 A.D.2d 336 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
610 N.Y.S.2d 773