Pfanner v Anderson

2024 NY Slip Op 32576(U)

July 25, 2024

Supreme Court, Kings County

Docket Number: Index No. 509789/2024

Judge: Leon Ruchelsman

Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip

Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York

State and local government sources, including the New

York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service.

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 

Index No. 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 it pertains to them. The plaintiff has moved 

seeking: to re argue 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 amended complaint th,e defendant Eric Gustave 

Aride:rson sold property located at 325 Main Street Poughkeepsier New 

York. The plaintiff ~sserts the property was owned by 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, accepting the allegations of. the complaint as true, 

whether the party can succeed upon any reasonable view of those 

facts {Perez v. Y & M Transportation Corporation, 219 AD3d 1449, 

196 NYS3d 145 [2d Dept., 2023]). Further, all the allegations in 

the complaint are deemed true and all reasonable inferences may be 

drawn in favor of the plaintiff (Archival Inc., v. 177 Realty 

Corp., 220 AD3d 909, 198 NYS2d 567 [2d Dept., 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 Pfanner was 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 

Pf anner' s interests and ignoring them to Anderson' s benefit. 

However, it is well settled that an '' intended purchaser must be 

presumed to have investigated the title, and to have examined everydeed or instrument properly recorded, and to have known every fact 

disclosed or to which an inquiry suggested by the record would have 

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 or to engage in further diligence (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 did not 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 

through Anderson'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

deed does not convey title ( Public Administrator of Kings .Co-o.nty v. 

·Evans., 2 98 AD2d 51:2., 750 · NYS.2:d 301 I2d P~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 authority for ccinveyahce are acquired by fraudulent 

means·r, is voidable· and does· convey :good ·t{ tle. The coμrt sta:ted 

that ·a deed ·containing the ti tie holder'$. actual. signature reflE)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, such a 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 f a.ith;, t id) . The,re·fore, in Shau Chung 

Hu v. Lowbet Realty Corp., 1.61 AD~d 986, 78 NYS3d 150 [2d Dept.., 

2018] the court held an individual who executed a deed obtained by 

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..roperty to Wallace.. Even if t.rue; and Pfanner can pursue such 

cla.iins against Anderson, that does 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 utilized fraudulent means to ol:itain any 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 the motion seeking to reargue 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 maintain any individual interests in the actual 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 plaintiff has 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 the motion by Wallace. seeking to dismiss all the 

claims is granted. The motion 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]