BARCLAYS BANK OF NEW YORK v. SOKOL, N.Y. App. Div., Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

On July 10, 1981, Phyllis K. Sokol and her husband, Marshall D. Sokol, executed and delivered a second mortgage on their family residence to Barclays Bank as security for a $60,000 business loan made to Marshall D. Sokol Associates, Inc. The loan later fell into default, prompting Barclays Bank to seek foreclosure on the mortgaged property, which was occupied by Phyllis K. Sokol, who had separated from her husband. In opposition to the foreclosure motion, Phyllis contended that her execution of the mortgage was procured by fraud, alleging that her husband and a former bank officer misrepresented the financial condition of the business. The Supreme Court of Westchester County granted summary judgment to the plaintiff, concluding no genuine issue of fact existed regarding the alleged fraud by the former bank officer. The Appellate Division affirmed this decision.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the appellant presented sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of fact that she was fraudulently induced to execute the mortgage instrument.
Whether the summary judgment was properly granted in favor of the plaintiff given the appellant's allegations of fraud.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

The appellant asserted that her execution of the mortgage was procured by fraud, involving misrepresentations by her husband and a former bank officer regarding the financial condition of the business.
She contended that the business was represented as being in excellent condition, whereas it was actually poor, and that she would not have signed the mortgage had she known the truth.

Respondent's Arguments

The respondent argued that the appellant failed to substantiate her fraud claim with probative evidence.
It was emphasized that the former bank officer allegedly involved had left the bank more than two months before the mortgage execution, undermining the appellant’s fraud allegations.
The respondent maintained that the appellant was conclusively bound by the mortgage absent credible proof of fraud or other wrongful acts.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Columbus Trust Co. v. Campolo, 110 A.D.2d 616, affd 66 N.Y.2d 701	Standard for summary judgment: determination of genuine vs. unsubstantiated factual issues.	The court applied the principle that conclusory assertions do not defeat summary judgment and that a genuine issue must be supported by probative evidence.
Rubin v. Irving Trust Co., 305 N.Y. 288, 306	Definition of a "genuine" issue for trial and the propriety of summary judgment when no true issue exists.	The court relied on this precedent to confirm that the appellant’s alleged issues were not genuine but feigned.
Freedman v. Chemical Constr. Corp., 43 N.Y.2d 260, 264	Conclusive binding effect of written agreements absent fraud, duress, or wrongful acts.	The court affirmed that the appellant was bound by the mortgage terms as she failed to prove fraud or wrongful inducement.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analyzed whether the appellant raised a genuine issue of fact sufficient to defeat summary judgment. It reiterated the legal standard that conclusory allegations without supporting evidentiary facts are insufficient. The appellant’s claim that the former bank officer fraudulently induced her to sign the mortgage was undermined by the fact that the officer had left the bank more than two months prior to the mortgage execution. The appellant failed to produce probative evidence substantiating her fraud claim. Consequently, the court found no genuine triable issue existed and upheld the grant of summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff.

Holding and Implications

The order granting summary judgment to Barclays Bank is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The decision directly resolves the foreclosure dispute by rejecting the appellant's fraud defense due to insufficient evidence. No new legal precedent was established as the court applied well-settled principles governing summary judgment and contractual fraud claims.

Show full summary ...

BARCLAYS BANK OF NEW YORK, N.A., Respondent, v. MARSHALL D. SOKOL et al., Defendants, and PHYLLIS K. SOKOL, Appellant.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

On July 10, 1981, the appellant Phyllis K. Sokol and her husband Marshall D. Sokol duly executed and delivered to the plaintiff Barclays Bank, as security for a business loan, a second mortgage on the Sokol family residence securing the $60,000 note of Marshall D. Sokol Associates, Inc., for whose benefit the loan proceeds were intended. Sometime thereafter, however, the loan lapsed into default. The plaintiff thereupon sought to foreclose upon the mortgaged premises, then occupied by the appellant, who had previously separated from her husband Marshall, the principal of Marshall D. Sokol Associates, Inc. In opposition to the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, the appellant's principal defense was the contention that her execution of the mortgage instrument had been procured by the fraud of her husband and a former bank officer involved with the loan, both of whom, it was alleged, represented to her, inter alia, that the condition of the business was excellent when, in fact, it was poor. According to the appellant, she would not have signed the mortgage had she known the truth about the financial condition of the business. Special Term granted the plaintiff summary judgment concluding, inter alia, that no genuine issues of fact existed with respect to the appellant's contention that she had been fraudulently induced to execute the subject mortgage by the former bank officer involved. We agreed.

It is well settled that "on a motion for summary judgment, the court must determine whether the factual issues presented are genuine or unsubstantiated" (Columbus Trust Co. v Campolo, 110 A.D.2d 616, affd 66 N.Y.2d 701). Moreover, "`[i]f the issue claimed to exist is not "genuine but feigned, and * * * there is in truth nothing to be tried" summary judgment is properly granted'" (Columbus Trust Co. v. Campolo, supra, quoting from Rubin v. Irving Trust Co., 305 N.Y. 288, 306). Conclusory assertions will not suffice to defeat a motion for summary judgment (see, Freedman v. Chemical Constr. Corp., 43 N.Y.2d 260, 264). It is the general rule, furthermore, that the "signer of a written agreement is conclusively bound by its terms unless there is a showing of fraud, duress or some other wrongful act on the part of any party to the contract" (Columbus Trust Co. v. Campolo, supra, at 617).

At bar, the appellant has failed to come forward with evidence substantiating her contention that the plaintiff fraudulently induced her to execute the subject mortgage. Her references to the alleged misrepresentations of the bank's former loan officer, who left the plaintiff's employ more than two months before the mortgage was executed, are conclusory and unsubstantiated by probative evidentiary facts and are thus insufficient to create a genuine triable issue necessary to defeat a motion for summary judgment.

We have reviewed the appellant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Mollen, P.J., Lawrence, Kunzeman and Sullivan, JJ., concur.

BARCLAYS BANK OF NEW YORK v. SOKOL