There is no claim of fraud or misrepresentation upon the part of the defendant as to what these terms were. Where there has been such misrepresentation, the courts have held that the Recording Acts will not be allowed to be used to perpetrate a fraud. ( Ruckstuhl v. Healy, 222 App. Div. 152.) In the absence of any claim of fraud or misrepresentation, however, the vendee is put on notice of the contents of a duly recorded document and its meaning.

There is no claim of fraud or misrepresentation upon the part of the defendant as to what these terms were. Where there has been such misrepresentation, the courts have held that the Recording Acts will not be allowed to be used to perpetrate a fraud. ( Ruckstuhl v. Healy, 222 App. Div. 152. ) In the absence of any claim of fraud or misrepresentation, however, the vendee is put on notice of the contents of a duly recorded document and its meaning."

Finally, defendant points out that the deed to EWAHI had not been recorded with the Bronx County Clerk as of the time defendant filed his order to show cause. However, the statute regarding the recording of conveyances of real property does not require that all instruments be recorded, but renders unrecorded deeds "void as against any person who subsequently purchases . . . the same real property or any portion thereof . . . in good faith and for a valuable consideration. . . and whose conveyance . . . is first duly recorded" (Real Property Law § 291; see Ruckstuhl v Healy, 222 AD 152 [1st Dept 1927] [purpose of recording statute is to notify subsequent purchasers and incumbrancers of the rights such instruments are intended to secure]). Thus, a failure to record the deed to EWAHI does not effect EWAHI's current interest as against defendant.