Scarsdale National Bank and Tr. Co. v. Stein

4 Citing cases

  1. Am. Home Mortg. Servicing, Inc v. McGhee

    2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 33120 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2013)

    In any event, as the motion is unopposed, the defendant mortgagor has failed to come forward with any evidence substantiating his contention that American's agents fraudulently induced him to execute the subject mortgage and indenture (see, Argent Mtge. Co., LLC v Mentesana,79 AD3d 1079, supra; Chemical Bank v Bowers, 228 AD2d 407, 643 NYS2d 653 [2d Dept 1996]; see also, Scarsdale Natl. Bank & Trust Co. v Stein, 151 AD2d 468, 542 NYS2d 257 [2d Dept 1989]; Barclays Bank of New York, N.A. v Sokol, 128 AD2d 492, 512 NYS2d 419 [2d Dept 1987]; see generally, Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Crt., 64 NY2d 851, 487 NYS2d 316 [19851). There is also no evidence that American, as the original mortgagee, had any relationship with Roslyn MeGhee, or participated in or had knowledge of Roslyn McGhec's alleged fraudulent conduct (see, Miller Planning Corp. v Wells, 253 AD2d 859, 678 NYS2d 340 [2d Dept 1998]; Chemical Bank v Bowers, 228 AD2d 407, supra).

  2. Am. Home Mortg. Servicing, Inc. v. McGhee

    2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 32983 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2012)

    In any event, as the motion is unopposed, the defendant mortgagor has failed to come forward with any evidence substantiating his contention that American's agents fraudulently induced him to execute the subject mortgage and indenture (see,Argent Mtge. Co., LLC v Mentesanu, 79 AD3d 1079, supra;Chemical Bank v Bowers, 228 AD2d 407, 643 NYS2d 653 [2d Dept 1996]; see also, Scarsdate Natl. Bank & Trust Co. v Stein, 151 AD2d 468, 542 NYS2d 257 [2d Dept 1989]; Barclays Bank of New York, N.A. v Sokol. 128 AD2d 492, 512 N YS2d 419 [2d Dept 1987]; see generally, Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 487 NYS2d 316 [1985]). There is also no evidence that American, as the original mortgagee, had any relationship with Roslyn McGhee, or participated in or had knowledge of Roslyn McGhee's alleged fraudulent conduct (see,Miller Planning Corp. v Wells, 253 AD2d 859, 678 NYS2d 340 [2d Dept 1998]; Chemical Bank v Bowers, 228 AD2d 407. supra).

  3. Aurora Bank FSB v. CSP Realty Assoc., LLC

    2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 32407 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2011)

    Also, the Defendants in no way explain how or when the alleged representations by officers or employees of the Plaintiff were found to be false and no proof has been offered to support the claim that the representations were false when made. Thus, the Defendants have neither established that they were fraudulently induced into executing the Note, the Subject Mortgage and the Guarantees by the Plaintiff ( see, Cohen v Houseconnect Realty Corp., 289 AD2d 277, 734 NYS2d 205 [2d Dept 2001]; Scarsdale Nat'l Bankv Stein, 151 AD2d 468, 542 NYS2d 257 [2d Dept 1989]), nor have they established that if fraud were in fact committed by Empire against them, that the Plaintiff had actual knowledge of the fraud and that it was required to disclose the same by virtue of a fiduciary or confidential relationship or superior knowledge of the essential facts that would render nondisclosure inherently unfair ( see, Euba v Euba. 78 AD3d 761. supra;Barrett v Freifeld, 77 AD3d 600, 908 NYS2d 736 [2d Dept 2010]; National Union FireIns. Co. of Pittsburgh, P.A. v Red Apple Group, Inc., 273 AD2d 140, 710 NYS2d 48 [1st Dept 2000]; Beckford v Northeastern Mortg. Inv. Corp., 262 AD2d 436, 692 NYS2d 412 [2d Dept 1999]). Moreover, since the express terms of the Subject Mortgage, Guarantees and Change In Terms Agreement contain merger and waiver clauses stating that they cannot be changed or terminated orally, the Defendants cannot now claim to have justifiably relied on verbal assurances allegedly made by officers or employees of the Plaintiff regarding

  4. Aurora Bank FSB v. CSP Realty Assocs. LLC

    2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 32407 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2011)

    Also, the Defendants in no way explain how or when the alleged representations by officers or employees of the Plaintiff were found to be false and no proof has been offered to support the claim that the representations were false when made. Thus, the Defendants have neither established that they were fraudulently induced into executing the Note, the Subject Mortgage and the Guarantees by the Plaintiff (see,Cohen v Houseconnect Realty Corp., 289 AD2d 277, 734 NYS2d 205 [2d Dept 2001]; Scarsdale Nat'l Bank v Stein, 151 AD2d 468, 542 NYS2d 257 [2d Dept 1989]), nor have they established that if fraud were in fact committed by Empire against them, that the Plaintiff had actual knowledge of the fraud and that it was required to disclose the same by virtue of a fiduciary or confidential relationship or superior knowledge of the essential facts that would render nondisclosure inherently unfair (see, Euba v Euba. 78 AD3d 161. supra: Barrett v Freifeld, 11 AD3d 600, 908 NYS2d 736 [2d Dept 2010]; National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, P.A. v Red Apple Group, Inc.. 273 AD2d 140, 710 NYS2d 48 [1st Dept 2000]; Beckford v Northeastern Mortg. Inv. Corp., 262 AD2d 436, 692 NYS2d 412 [2d Dept 1999]). Moreover, since the express terms of the Subject Mortgage, Guarantees and Change In Terms Agreement contain merger and waiver clauses stating that they cannot be changed or terminated orally, the Defendants cannot now claim to have justifiably relied on verbal assurances allegedly made by officers or employees of the Plaintiff regarding