Title: Joseph I Rosenzweig v. Radiah K. Givens

State: new-york

Issuer: New York Appellate Court

Document:

- 1 -
=================================================================
This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before
publication in the New York Reports.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
No. 190  SSM 23
Joseph I. Rosenzweig,
            Appellant,
        v.
Radiah K. Givens,
            Respondent.
Submitted by Marc E. Elliott, for appellant.
Submitted by Barbara H. Katsos, for respondent.
MEMORANDUM:
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed,
with costs, and the certified question answered in the
affirmative.
In connection with the mortgage foreclosure action,
defendant has alleged sufficient facts to warrant denial of
- 2 -
SSM No. 23
- 2 -
plaintiff's pre-discovery motion for summary judgment, having
asserted that plaintiff, an attorney who was then her paramour,
secured the mortgage through fraud and overreaching and by
exploiting a fiduciary relationship with her (see generally
Matter of Grieff, 92 NY2d 341, 345 [1998]).  She contends that,
under the guise of buying her a condominium, he induced her to
enter into a mortgage arrangement whereby he was the lender and
she the borrower.  Furthermore, plaintiff hired a friend to
represent them both at the closing.  Defendant claims that
plaintiff paid all expenses related to the condominium and did
not seek mortgage payments or any other contribution from
defendant until three years later -- after their marriage and
defendant's subsequent discovery that plaintiff already had a
wife and two children, rendering their marriage bigamous. 
Plaintiff then demanded payment, accelerated the loan and pursued
foreclosure against defendant.  We also conclude that defendant
has stated a prima facie case of fraudulent inducement to
marriage (see Blossom v Barrett, 37 NY 434 [1868]; see also, Tuck
v Tuck, 14 NY2d 341, 344 [1964]).
*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *
On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules,
order affirmed, with costs, and certified question answered in
the affirmative, in a memorandum.  Chief Judge Lippman and Judges
Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur.
Decided September 17, 2009