### Pfanner v Anderson 2024 NY Slip Op 32576(U) July 25, 2024 Supreme Court, Kings County Docket Number: Index No. 509789/2024 Judge: LeonRuchelsman Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip

Op30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local governmentsources, including the New

York State Unified Court System's eCourtsService. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication.

### FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 07/25/2024 11:47 AM INDEX NO. 509789/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 155 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/25/2024

1 of 5 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS : CIVIL TERM: COMMERCIAL 8

. ---- .-- ·._· ----· ·-·-------·-.-- ·-.-·--· -------· X ANDREAS PFANNER, indiViduall.y and in the right of POK 

### 325 MAIN, 

### LLC, 

### Plaintiff,

- against

- ERIC GUSTAVE ANDERSON, URBAN GREEN EQUITIES, LLC, POK 

### MILL HOUSING DEVELOPMENT 

### FUND CORPORATION, POK 325 

### MAIN LLC, WALLACE CAMPUS MANAGER LLC; Defendants,



## ---- --- ---- --------- ·.--- -**~**

## ----~-x PRESENT: HON. 

### LEON RUCHELSMAN 

### Decision and 

### order IndexNo. 509789/2024

July 25, 2024 Motion Seq. 

### #5 & 

### #8
The defendant Wallace Campus Manager LLC [hereinafter 'Wallace'] has moved pursuant to CPLR §3211 seeking to dismiss the amended complaint as itpertains to them. The plaintiff has moved seeking:to reargue a vat.atur o.f a temporary restraining order. The motions. have been opposed respectively. Papers were submitted by the parties after reviewing all the arguments this court now makes the following determination. According to the amendedcomplaint th,e defendant EricGustave Aride:rson sold property located at 325 Main StreetPoughkeepsier New York. Theplaintiff ~sserts the property was ownedby Pfanner and Anderson, through entities they own together. The amended complaint seeks to set aside that sale oh the grounds it occurred 

### without the 

### p1ai-ntiff'

### s knowledge or con::.icerit. Wailace 

### has now rri:oved seeking to 

### dismiss ali thE:i 

### causes of action on 

### the grounds they fail

### fo aJlege 

### any facts necessary

### to support the allegations.



### [* 1]

### FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 07/25/2024 11:47 AM INDEX NO. 509789/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 155 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/25/2024

2 of 5 

### Conclusions of Law It is well settled that upon 

### a motion to dismiss the court must determine, acceptingthe allegations of.the complaint astrue, whether the party can succeed upon any reasonable view of those facts {Perez v. Y & M

### Transportation Corporation, 219 

### AD3d 1449, 

### 196 NYS3d 

### 145 [2dDept., 2023]). Further, all the allegations in 

### the complaint are deemedtrue and all reasonable inferencesmaybe drawn in favor of the plaintiff (Archival Inc., v. 177 

### Realty Corp., 220 AD3d 909, 198 

### NYS2d 567 

### [2dDept., 2023]), 

### Whether the complaint will later survive a motion for summary judgment, 

### or whether the plaintiff will ultimately be able to prove its claims, of course, plays no part 

### in the determination of 

### a pre'-discovery CPLR §3211 

### motion to dismiss (~, Lam 

### v. Weiss, 219 AD3d 713, 195 NYS3d 488 [2d 

### Dept., 2023]). 

### Hercules Argyriou, a representative of Wallace submitted an affidavit and asserts that 

### POK 325 

### Main LLC represented itself as the sole owner of the property and that defendant Andersoh, who signed on beh.alf of the corporate entity had the authority to 

### execute the contract. Thus, Wallace ins,ists they 

### are good faith purchasers and the lawsuit as to them must b_e dismissed. 'I'he plaintiff presents numerous arguments why the 

### sale to Wallace shoold 

### be voided. First, 

### tr:i.at Wallace knew 

### Pfannerwas an owner of 

### the corp6ra,te 

### entity a.:h.d should have known that Anders.on did not 

## have sole authority to enter into the contract. Further, the

2



### [* 2]

### FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 07/25/2024 11:47 AM INDEX NO. 509789/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 155 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/25/2024

3 of 5 plaintiff argues Wallace participated in the sale knowing of Pfanner's interests and ignoring them to Anderson's benefit. However, it is well settled that an ''intended purchaser must be presumed to have investigatedthe title, and to have examinedeverydeed or instrument properlyrecorded, and to have known every fact disclosed or to which an inquiry suggestedby therecordwouldhave led" (Fairmont Funding Ltd., 

### v. Stefansky, 301 AD2d 

### 562, 754 NYS2d 54 (2d Dept., 2003]). "If the purchaser fails to use due diligence in exan'fining the title, he or she is chargeable, as a matter of law, with notice of the facts which a proper inquiry would have disclosed'' (id)
. In this case there are no inquiries or investigations which Wallace should have undertaken. Wallace was presented with a contract and all the indicia of ownership on 

### the part of 

### POK 325 Main 

### LLC and Anderson. There was no basis for Wa.llace to wonder and then inquire whether Anderson, in fact, had the authority to engage in the sale orto engage in furtherdiligence (cf., Emigrant Bank v. Drimmer, 171 AD3d 1132; 99 NYS3d 79 [2d Dept., 2019]). Thus, the affidavit of Mr, Argyriou unmistakably demonstrate that Wallace had 

## no knowledge of Pfanher, had ho reason to have l<.nowledge of Pfanner and didnot fail to exercise due diligence by not making ariy further inquiries. Therefore, Wallace was a bona 

### tide purchaser 

### aa a maiter 

### of

## iaw. The plaintiff argues that Wallace :received the 

### p.to_[)erty throughAnderson's fraudulent means. It is true.that one 

### cannot be
a bol'.1a fide purch,aser through 

### a forged 

### deed and that 

### such forged 3



### [* 3]

### FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 07/25/2024 11:47 AM INDEX NO. 509789/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 155 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/25/2024

4 of 5 deeddoes not convey title (PublicAdministratorof Kings

### .Co-o.nty v. ·Evans., 298 AD2d 

### 51:2., 750·NYS.2:d 

### 301

### I2dP~pt., 2.Q02J}. In Faison

### v. Lewis; 

### 25 NY~d 220, lO NYS3d 185. [ZO·lS] 

### the· Court of Appeals explained that .a deed that contains a forged signature is a .:traudul.ent de.ed

### whicl:;l conveys.

# no title. Boweve·r; 

### a deed "·where the 

### signature an,d 

### authorityfor ccinveyahce 

### are acquired by 

### fraudulent means·r, is voidable· 

### and 

### does· convey :good 

### ·t{tle. The 

### coμrt sta:ted that·a deed ·containing

### thetitie holder'$. actual.

### signaturereflE)ct.s "the 

### as.sent of the. wili 

### to th.e use of 

### the paper 

### or the 

### transfer, 

### .althqugh it is 

### ,assent induced by fraud mistake or ·•misplaced ·COrlfidence" .(id).. Con$equently, 

### sucha de:ed '\·clotheq

### with al;:L the 

### evidences 

### 0£ good titlE:i, may iricumber 

### the property to a party who become·s a purchas·er in good fa.ith;, 

### tid)
. The,re·fore, in Shau Chung Hu v. Lowbet Realty Corp., 

### 1.61 AD~d 986, 78 NYS3d 150 [2d 

### Dept.., 2018] the 

### courtheld 

### an individual who executeda 

### deed obtainedby fraudul.erit

### means··could 

### .eomtey ..the deed 

### to·the l;:,ona fide pp,rchase
.. 

### rs sine~ there was no 

### allegation :the individual's 

### signature was forged~ Likewise, in
.. this .caset there. is ho allegation Andersciri's 

### ~ignature was 

### forged, rather that 

### he lacked authority to 

### transfer the

### p..ropertytoWallace.. Even if

### t.rue; and Pfanner can 

### pursue such 

### cla.iins against Anderson, thatdoes not

### render

### the deed.void., making possession: by Wallace 

### unlawful. 

### Rath.er, Wallace,··maintains valid title 

### since such title was obtained 

### by them from. Ande,tson 

### wpq, it is alleg.ed, only 

### utilizedfraudulent means 

### to ol:itainany authority hi1Tis.elf
.. In 

### tpese circumstance·;:;, if· true·,. 

### Anderson .maintained 

### 4



### [* 4]

### FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 07/25/2024 11:47 AM INDEX NO. 509789/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 155 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/25/2024

5 of 5 

### voidablE; title and thus Wallace obta-ined good title. For these reasons themotion seeking toreargue the dismissal of the restraining order is denied. Even if Anderson 

### 'Was also a member of a Wallace entity such knowledge would not remove Wallace's status as a bona fide purchaser. Further, the plaintiff does not maintainany individual interests intheactual corporate property and therefore cannot seek 

## to restrain any such prope-rty (Gross v. 

### Neiman, 147 

### AD3d 505, 48 

### NYS3d 29 [Pt 

### Dept., 2017]). 

### Therefore, the 

### plaintiff cannot restrain Wallace's ability to utilize the property. Any claims the plaintiffhas 

### regarding the value of 

## such property are claims on directed against Anderson. Therefore, the causes of action that pertain to Wallace are 

### all dismissed and themotionbyWallace.seeking to 

### dismiss all the claims is granted. Themotion seeking to rearglie the 

### disrnissal of 

### the restraining order is denied. So 

### ordered.

DATED~ July 25, 2024 

### Brooklyn N.Y.ENTER:



### Hon. Leon: Ruchelsmari JSC

5



### [* 5]