SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-5464-15T3

CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE 

COMPANY, as subrogee of 

GOLDEN UNION, LLC,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

UNION AVENUE HOLDING, 

LLC, ARIEL GANTZ and 

STUART BIENENSTOCK,

Defendants,

and

JUDAH BLOCH,

Defendant-Appellant.

_______________________________

Argued April 12, 2018 – Decided January 8, 2019

Before Judges Simonelli, Rothstadt and Gooden 

Brown.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law 

Division, Essex County, Docket No. L-3785-15.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the 

internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
2

A-5464-15T3

Ronald L. Davison argued the cause for appellant 

(Starr, Gern, Davison & Rubin, PC, attorneys; Ronald 

L. Davison and Lisa J. Jurick, on the briefs).

Brian S. Tretter argued the cause for respondent 

(Fidelity National Law Group, attorneys; Brian S. 

Tretter, of counsel and on the brief).

The opinion of the court was delivered by 

GOODEN BROWN, J.A.D.

Following a bench trial, the trial court entered a $1.3 million judgment in 

favor of plaintiff, Chicago Title Insurance Company (Chicago Title), as 

subrogee of Golden Union, LLC (Golden Union), against defendants Judah 

Bloch, his partner, Stuart Bienenstock, and their company, Union Avenue 

Holding, LLC (UAH), based on claims of fraud and breach of covenant. Bloch 

now appeals the judgment entered on July 14, 2016. We affirm.

The dispute arose out of a real estate transaction in which UAH sold an 

apartment building (the property) to Golden Union for $1.4 million. A condition 

of the sale was that all liens on the property had to be satisfied prior to or at the 

closing. West 58th Street, LLC (West 58th Street) and TSR Group, LLC (TSR) 

held an outstanding $1.1 million mortgage on the property (hereinafter the West 

58th Street mortgage). Unbeknownst to Golden Union, defendants delivered a 

fraudulent discharge of the West 58th Street mortgage to Golden Union at the 
3

A-5464-15T3

closing in order to fulfill the precondition of the sale. Chicago Title issued the 

title insurance policy. 

When Golden Union discovered the fraud and the outstanding lien, it sued 

UAH, West 58th Street, and TSR. West 58th Street, which was previously 

unaware of the sale of the property, sued Golden Union, UAH, its principals, 

Bloch and Bienenstock, and Bloch's business partner and brother-in-law, Ariel 

Gantz, seeking a declaratory judgment in connection with its mortgage lien, a 

judgment of foreclosure, and other relief. Golden Union filed a contesting 

answer, which included affirmative defenses, counterclaims, and cross-claims 

against UAH, Bloch, Bienenstock, and Gantz, alleging fraud, negligent 

misrepresentation, and breach of covenant. A settlement of certain claims 

resulted in West 58th Street's assignment to Golden Union of its claims against 

UAH, Bloch, Bienenstock, and Gantz. After Chicago Title paid West 58th Street 

$1.3 million as part of the settlement, it became subrogated to Golden Union's 

cross-claims and West 58th Street's assigned claims. 

At the bench trial conducted on March 8, 2016, plaintiff presented the 

testimony of Gantz and Steve Fortunato, one of Golden Union's principals. In 

his defense, Bloch testified on his own behalf. In addition, numerous 

documentary exhibits were moved into evidence, by stipulation of the parties,
4

A-5464-15T3

as well as the deposition testimony of Bienenstock, Stephen Friedman, UAH's 

attorney, Daniel Turetsky, the sole owner of West 58th Street, and Ronald 

Herbst, West 58th Street's outside counsel. 

The evidence showed that on August 15, 2011, UAH executed a mortgage

note in the amount of $1.1 million to West 58th Street, which was secured by a 

non-purchase money mortgage encumbering the property. To further secure the 

note, on the same date, Bloch, Bienenstock, and Gantz executed a guaranty of 

payment, and UAH executed to West 58th Street an assignment of leases and 

rents (assignment of rents) for the property. Both the mortgage and the

assignment of rents were recorded on September 12, 2011, in the Essex County 

Register's Office. On April 9, 2012, West 58th Street assigned the mortgage and 

the assignment of rents to TSR for ten dollars. The assignment was recorded on 

June 27, 2012. The validity of this assignment and its recording are unclear in 

the record.

No payments were made on the note or mortgage to either West 58th Street 

or TSR. In September 2012, Turetsky and Bienenstock discussed different 

proposals to restructure the outstanding loan. Email exchanges showed that 

Bloch was involved to some degree in these discussions. One proposal involved 

Bienenstock funding Turetsky's acquisition of a U.S. company that bid to buy 
5

A-5464-15T3

bonds on the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange in exchange for Turetsky discharging the 

West 58th Street mortgage. However, unbeknownst to Turetsky, Bienenstock 

had already arranged to sell the property to Golden Union and hired Friedman 

as UAH’s counsel in connection with the sale. According to Bienenstock, Bloch 

was actively involved in all aspects of negotiating the Golden Union deal, while 

Gantz was merely a passive participant. 

Fortunato testified that, based on his conversations with Bienenstock 

during the negotiations, the sale was contingent upon defendants satisfying all

liens on the property prior to or at the closing. According to Fortunato,

Bienenstock gave no indication that the satisfaction of any lien was contingent 

upon some post-closing event. If he had, Fortunato would not have agreed to 

purchase the property. Thus, when the title binder provided to Fortunato by 

Ardent Title Group listed the West 58th Street mortgage, Fortunato attempted 

to obtain a pay-off figure for the mortgage prior to scheduling the closing. 

However, Friedman advised Fortunato in an email "that he was handling the 

discharge and the payoff for [the] West 58th [Street mortgage]." In a conference 

call with Friedman and Bienenstock, Fortunato was assured that the mortgage 

was going to be discharged pursuant to some other business dealings between 

the parties. Once "Friedman sent over proposed forms of discharge" and "the 
6

A-5464-15T3

title company approved," Fortunato scheduled the closing for September 20, 

2012. 

At the closing, Fortunato and his business partner, Michael Taormina,

both of whom were lawyers, represented Golden Union. Friedman,

Bienenstock, and Bloch attended the closing for UAH. Through Friedman, 

Bienenstock provided Fortunato with an executed discharge for the West 58th 

Street mortgage, and a termination of the TSR assignment of rents, which 

referenced the assignment of mortgage to TSR. These documents led Fortunato 

to believe the mortgage was paid off, and he was purchasing the property with 

clear title. Although Bloch denied seeing the executed discharges at the closing

and denied advising Golden Union that the property was going to be sold with 

clear title, he testified that he understood Golden Union intended to buy the 

property clear of any liens. 

Taormina signed the HUD settlement statement at the closing as the 

settlement agent, "responsible for clearing title . . . on behalf of the title 

company." The HUD statement showed no proceeds of the sale satisfying the 

West 58th Street mortgage. Bienenstock signed the deed, the seller's residency 

certification, the affidavit of consideration, and the affidavit of title on behalf of 

UAH. The discharge of mortgage, which was dated September 19, 2012, and 
7

A-5464-15T3

purportedly signed by Herbst as the authorized signatory for West 58th Street, 

specified that "[t]he mortgage ha[d] been [paid in full] or otherwise [satisfied]

and [discharged]." Although Herbst signed the discharge, the notary 

acknowledgement, purportedly prepared by Adina Zion, an associate of Herbst's 

firm, certified that "Eliezer Swertloff personally came before [her] and stated to 

[her] satisfaction that this person . . . was the maker of the attached instrument; 

. . . [and] was authorized to and did execute this instrument as the manager of 

[West 58th Street.]"

1

 The termination of assignment of rents was dated 

September 18, 2012, and signed by Eliezer Swertloff,2as manager for TSR. The 

deed and both discharges were recorded on October 2, 2012.

Approximately four months after the closing, Herbst notified Ardent Title 

Group and Fortunato that the executed discharge of the West 58th Street 

mortgage was forged. Herbst demanded that the discharge be voided and the 

West 58th Street mortgage reinstated to its proper priority. According to Herbst, 

both his and Zion's signatures were forgeries, neither he nor Zion ever signed 

the discharge, and Zion's purported notarization was executed with a false 

 

1 Fortunato did not recall whether he noticed the discrepancy at the closing.

2

 Swertloff's name appears alternately in the record as Swerdloff.
8

A-5464-15T3

stamp. At his deposition, Herbst confirmed the forged signatures but testified 

that he did not know who was responsible.

Friedman testified at his deposition that he obtained the executed 

discharge forms from either Bienenstock or Bloch and delivered them at the 

closing but did not review them. He testified that although he had drafted the 

discharge forms, he expected either Bienenstock or Bloch to obtain the required 

signatures for an effective discharge. Bloch denied having anything to do with 

the forgeries. He also denied bringing the documents to the closing and could 

not "say . . . who brought [the] documents." Likewise, Bienenstock denied 

bringing the documents to the closing, denied knowing who brought the 

documents to the closing, and denied seeing them until after the closing. 

Bienenstock admitted, however, that the handwriting on the discharge of the 

assignment of rents "look[ed] very similar to [his] handwriting."

Friedman explained further that when he advised Fortunato that the payoff 

of the West 58th Street mortgage was being handled through a separate 

arrangement, he had no specific knowledge about the nature of that separate 

arrangement. However, his "understanding was always that there was some kind 

of an arrangement being worked out between [his] clients and the holders of the 

mortgages." Friedman acknowledged several conversations and email 
9

A-5464-15T3

exchanges between himself, Bienenstock, and Bloch in the weeks and days 

leading up to the closing in which he discussed with them the terms of the sale. 

In one email in particular, which was acknowledged by Bloch, Friedman 

specified that the West 58th Street mortgage had to be released or satisfied by 

West 58th Street and TSR. According to Friedman, while the net proceeds from 

the closing, totaling $637,822.22, were insufficient to pay off the West 58th 

Street mortgage, he related conversations he had with both Bienenstock and 

Bloch about using the closing proceeds to invest in a company buying Israeli 

bonds. 

Bienenstock confirmed his belief that after receiving the funds from the 

closing, through the bond purchase, Turetsky would forgive the West 58th Street 

mortgage. Likewise, Bloch confirmed that the closing proceeds "were to be 

used to purchase bonds in Israel" in order "to help . . . Turetsky and TSR take 

control of this company and that . . . [he and Bienenstock] were going to be 

partners with them in this company." According to Bloch, the arrangement 

constituted "an asset replacement" for the property encumbered by the West 58th 

Street mortgage. Notwithstanding his understanding that Golden Union 

intended to buy the property clear of any liens, Bloch acknowledged he could 

not wire the closing proceeds to complete the purchase purportedly necessary to 
10 A-5464-15T3

discharge the mortgage until after the closing because the receiving account in 

Israel had not been established as of the date of the closing. Yet, Bloch denied 

knowing the West 58th Street mortgage would not be satisfied at or prior to the 

closing. Gantz also believed that the West 58th Street mortgage would be 

discharged by sending money to Israel to purchase bonds after the sale of the 

property. 

After denying Bloch's and Gantz' motions for a directed verdict pursuant 

to Rule 4:40-1, in a thirty-page written opinion issued on July 14, 2016, Judge 

Stephanie A. Mitterhoff entered judgment against UAH, Bienenstock, and Bloch 

in the amount of $1.3 million plus pre-judgment interest based on the claims of 

common law fraud, fraudulent inducement, fraudulent misrepresentation, and 

breach of covenant. Although the judge dismissed the claims for negligent 

misrepresentation and negligent breach of covenant based on her finding "that 

the actions of Bienenstock and Bloch on behalf of UAH were unquestionably 

intentional[,]" the judge did not award punitive damages. The judge also

dismissed all claims against Gantz with prejudice. 

Initially, the judge recited the elements to establish a claim for common 

law fraud as follows:

Plaintiff must show "(1) a material misrepresentation of 

a presently existing or past fact; (2) knowledge or belief 
11 A-5464-15T3

by the defendant of its falsity; (3) an intention that the 

other person rely on it; (4) reasonable reliance thereon 

by the other person; and (5) resulting damages." Banco 

Popular N.[ Am.] v. Gandi[,] 184 [N.J.] 161, 172 

(2005)[ (]quoting Gennari v. Weichert Co. Realtors, 

148 [N.J.] 582, 610 (1997)[)]. Fraud may also be 

committed by intentional concealment of a material fact 

that the concealing party has a duty to disclose. In the 

context of a business transaction, such as in the context 

of a sale of commercial property, the elements of 

fraudulent concealment are "the deliberate concealment 

or nondisclosure by the seller of a material fact or 

defect not readily observable to the purchaser, with the 

buyer relying upon the seller to his detriment." State[,]

Dep't of [Envtl. Prot.] v. Ventron Corp., 94 [N.J.] 473, 

503 (1983).

Fraud is never presumed. Each of the elements 

of fraud must be proven by clear and convincing 

evidence. Stoecker v. Ecevarria, 408 [N.J. Super.] 597, 

[617] (App. Div. [2009).] . . . 

. . . .

The elements of a cause of action for fraudulent 

inducement and fraudulent misrepresentation are 

essentially the same as those for common law fraud. In 

order to establish such claims, five elements must be 

shown:" (1) a material misrepresentation; (2) made with 

knowledge of its falsity; . . . (3) with the intention that 

the other party rely thereon; (4) resulting in reliance by 

that party; (5) to his detriment." Metex Mfg. Corp. v. 

Manson, No. 05-2948, 2008 WL 877870, at *4 (D.N.J. 

March 28, 2008). The "deliberate suppression or 

omission of a material fact that should be disclosed, is 

equivalent to a material misrepresentation." [N.J. 

Econ. Dev. Auth. v. Pavonia Rest., Inc., 319 N.J. Super. 

435, 446 (App. Div. 1998)]. A defendant will not be 
12 A-5464-15T3

excused from fraudulent conduct "merely because the 

plaintiff might have or should have discovered the 

fraud by its own diligence or investigation."

As to the first three elements, the judge determined 

there was a material misrepresentation by both Bloch 

and Bienenstock, made with knowledge of its falsity, 

with the intent that Golden Union and its principals 

would rely on it. The misrepresentation consisted of 

the failure of Bloch and Bienenstock to disclose to . . . 

Fortunato and Taormina what both defendants, clearly 

and convincingly, knew: that the West 58th St./TSR 

mortgages were not going to be discharged at or before 

the closing.

 

To support her determination, the judge found that both Bloch and Bienenstock 

were aware of the details of the sale and were aware that Golden Union "had 

demanded the discharge of the mortgages at or before the closing," and that they 

delivered the forged discharge to the closing knowing the buyer would not close 

without it and would rely on it in agreeing to close. According to the judge, 

both Bloch and Bienenstock were equally aware "that the discharge could not 

occur until the closing proceeds were wired to Turetsky or his representatives in 

Israel" because both had "participated in the negotiation" with Turetsky and the 

"(failed) execution of the proposed debt restructure." 

The judge found Bienenstock's "denial that he brought the [forged] 

discharges to the closing" undermined by Fortunato's testimony that 

Bienenstock delivered the discharges at the closing, and Friedman's deposition 
13 A-5464-15T3

testimony that either Bloch or Bienenstock brought them. The judge also found 

it "highly likely that Bienenstock forged the document himself, based on his own 

admission that some of the handwriting on the discharge looked remarkably 

similar to his own." The judge also determined that Bloch was not credible and 

rejected "his self-serving testimony at trial concerning his relative lack of 

expertise and his attempts to shift all blame to his partner Bienenstock[.]" 

The judge elaborated:

Bloch is a far more educated individual who has a 

degree in economics, and he testified in great detail[,]

and clearly was aware of all the mechanics of the 

transaction. In addition, Bloch had sole control of the 

business account . . . . It was Bloch who took control 

of the closing proceeds, had them deposited into the 

. . . business account, and thereafter wired them to Israel 

in the apparently thwarted expectation of both he and 

Bienenstock becoming partners in [Turetsky's]

company.

Bloch admitted that he knew the buyer believed 

the closing would result in his obtaining clear title to 

the property, which Bloch knew was untrue. Bloch's 

disavowal of any knowledge that the mortgages were to 

be discharged at or prior to closing is equally 

unavailing. Both Bienenstock and Bloch received 

emails from their attorney, Stephen Friedman, in 

advance of the closing indicating the necessity of 

obtaining a discharge of the West 58th St./TSR

mortgages. To that end, Friedman had prepared the 

form of the discharge at the request of both Bloch and 

Bienenstock. After preparing it, he forwarded the form 

discharge via email to both Bloch and Bienenstock with 
14 A-5464-15T3

the understanding that they would obtain the signatures 

required for an effective discharge at the time of 

closing. The court further finds that Bienenstock and 

Bloch, desperate to consummate this deal with Daniel 

Turetsky, each knew that they would be unable to do so 

without securing the . . . net proceeds from the closing. 

Thus, Bloch as well as Bienenstock clearly knew and 

understood that the buyer expected the mortgages

needed to be discharged at or before the closing and 

would not close unless they were discharged. The court 

finds that Bienenstock and Bloch made a decision to 

induce the buyer into believing the mortgages were 

discharged in order to take possession of the closing 

proceeds and consummate their deal with Turetsky. 

Bloch's understanding of this is further supported by his 

evasiveness when asked at trial whether he knew the 

West 58th St[reet] mortgage was going to be discharged 

prior to closing, to which he responded[,] "I did not 

know specifically what would be satisfied as far as I 

knew the mortgage holder was TSR." . . . Clearly, he 

understood something was to be discharged at the 

closing, and the court finds he actually knew exactly 

what was to be discharged based on his and his partner 

Bienenstock's review of the discharges. The discharges 

were prepared by Friedman at the request of Bloch and 

Bienenstock, emailed to both Bloch and Bienenstock, 

and regardless of who forged the document, the court 

finds both Bloch and Bienenstock knew that to induce 

the buyer to close, the discharges had to be executed 

and presented to the buyer at or before closing. Thus, 

the first three elements of a cause of action are satisfied 

as to Bloch and Bienenstock.

The judge also found the fifth element of fraud, damages, "clearly . . . 

satisfied." As to the fourth element, reasonable reliance, Bloch contended that 

because Chicago Title's settlement agent, Taormina, who was also an attorney 
15 A-5464-15T3

and principal of Golden Union, handled the closing, reviewed the documents,

and certified to Chicago Title that all of the insurance commitment requirements 

were satisfied, Taormina's failure to discern the discrepancy on the discharge 

defeated any finding of reasonable reliance as a matter of law. In rejecting 

Bloch's contention, the judge stated:

In that regard, a defendant will not be excused from 

fraudulent conduct "merely because the plaintiff might 

have or should have discovered the fraud by its own 

diligence or investigation[.]" Moreover, the court finds 

that Golden Union acted reasonably diligently in 

demanding the form of discharge, obtaining the form of 

the discharge, obtaining approval from the title 

company for the proposed discharges, and receiving an 

executed discharge at closing. That [p]laintiff did not 

discern that it was being defrauded by [d]efendants 

with a forged discharge, the court concludes, does not 

defeat Golden Union[']s claims for fraud. 

. . . .

Although there was a discrepancy [on the 

executed discharge form], . . . that discrepancy alone 

does not defeat the fraud claims. Rather, in light of 

assurances, both explicit and implicit, by Bloch, 

Bienenstock and their attorney[,] Stephen Friedman[,]

that the mortgage was discharged at closing, the court 

finds that [p]laintiff's reliance on these assurances was 

reasonable under the circumstances. Based on all the 

circumstances, the court finds that Golden Union did 
16 A-5464-15T3

not know that the discharge was false, nor was the 

falseness of the discharge obvious.3

Turning to the breach of covenant claim, citing Mayte v. Nemecz, 131 

N.J.L. 173 (1944), the judge noted that "[u]nder New Jersey law, if a bargain 

and sale deed contains a warranty as to the grantor's acts, and the subject 

property is encumbered as a result of actions taken by the grantor, then the 

grantor is liable to the grantee when the deed is given." Further, according to 

the judge, under Sons of Thunder, Inc. v. Borden, Inc., 148 N.J. 396, 420 (1997), 

and Wilson v. Amerada Hess Corp., 168 N.J. 236, 251 (2001), "a covenant of 

good faith and fair dealing is implied in every contract in New Jersey[,]" and 

"[a] party breaches this implied covenant 'if the party exercises its discretionary 

authority arbitrarily, unreasonably, or capriciously, with the objective of 

preventing the other party from receiving its reasonably expected fruits under 

the contract[,]'" respectively. 

The judge found "ample credible evidence to support [p]laintiff's claims 

based on the breach of the covenant in the warranty as [d]efendants conveyed 

 

3 Moreover, actual reliance, as was present here, is sufficient as a matter of 

law to establish common law fraud. Union Ink Co. v. AT&T Corp., 352 N.J. 

Super. 617, 646 (App. Div. 2002) ("Common law fraud requires a showing of 

actual reliance, but not objectively reasonable reliance, since the perpetrator of 

a fraud may not urge that the victim should have been 'more circumspect or 

astute.'" (quoting Jewish Ctr. of Sussex Cty., 86 N.J. at 626 n.1)).
17 A-5464-15T3

title knowing the West 58th [Street mortgage] remained as an encumbrance on 

the property." The judge explained "the issue [was] not whether [p]laintiff[]

[was] misled, but whether the statements in the warranty were true, which 

clearly they were not." According to the judge, "[a]s a result, [p]laintiff was 

deprived of the expected fruits of the contract; namely, clear title to the 

property[,]" and "[d]efendants['] claim that [p]laintiff knew of the existence of 

the mortgage and the assignment to TSR" did not absolve defendants of "their 

duties arising from the covenant in the deed." The judge entered a conforming 

judgment and this appeal followed. 

On appeal, Bloch argues the judge's "findings of fact were totally 

unsupported by the credible evidence in the record[,]" and despite "correctly 

articulat[ing] the elements of [the] causes of action," her "application of the law 

. . . to the facts was clearly erroneous." He asserts that "[d]espite the absence of 

any proof . . . that [he] was involved in obtaining or even knew about the forgery, 

and despite [his] uncontroverted testimony that he was completely uninvolved 

with and unaware of the forgery," the judge "nevertheless concluded that he, 

along with . . . Bienenstock, participated in procuring the forged discharge." 

Furthermore, the judge's "conclusion that Golden Union and its principals . . . 

reasonably relied on the discharge of mortgage bearing the forged signature . . . 
18 A-5464-15T3

was also not supported by the credible evidence in the record." We disagree and 

affirm substantially for the reasons set forth by Judge Mitterhoff in her 

comprehensive and well-reasoned written opinion. We add only the following 

brief comments.

Our review of a trial court's fact-finding in a non-jury case is limited. 

Seidman v. Clifton Sav. Bank, S.L.A., 205 N.J. 150, 169 (2011). "The general 

rule is that findings by the trial court are binding on appeal when supported by 

adequate, substantial, credible evidence." Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394, 411-

12 (1998). We owe "deference to those findings of the trial judge which are 

substantially influenced by [the judge's] opportunity to hear and see the 

witnesses and to have the 'feel' of the case, which a reviewing court cannot 

enjoy." State v. Locurto, 157 N.J. 463, 471 (1999) (quoting State v. Johnson, 

42 N.J. 146, 161 (1964)). Although, a trial judge's interpretation of the law is 

"not entitled to any special deference[,]" Manalapan Realty, L.P. v. Twp. Comm. 

of Manalapan, 140 N.J. 366, 378 (1995), we "'do not disturb the factual findings 

and legal conclusions of the trial judge unless we are convinced that they are so 

manifestly unsupported by or inconsistent with the competent, relevant and 

reasonably credible evidence as to offend the interests of justice[.]'" Rova Farms 

Resort, Inc. v. Inv'rs Ins. Co. of Am., 65 N.J. 474, 484 (1974) (quoting 
19 A-5464-15T3

Fagliarone v. Twp. of N. Bergen, 78 N.J. Super. 154, 155 (App. Div. 1963)). 

Here, Judge Mitterhoff's factual findings are well-supported by the competent 

evidence in the record and her interpretation and application of the law are 

unassailable. Thus, we find no basis on which to intervene.

Bloch also argues that because UAH alone was "named as a defendant in 

the breach of covenant counts," the court "lacked jurisdiction to enter judgment 

against him on the breach of covenant claim." We agree with plaintiff that the 

court did not enter judgment against Bloch on the breach of covenant cause of 

action. Rather, in the judge's discussion of the breach of covenant claim, the 

judge specified that "[p]laintiff allege[d] that in the deed to Golden Union, UAH 

warranted that it had done no act to encumber the [p]roperty" when, in fact, "the 

mortgage remained a lien on the premises." Thus, in accordance with the judge's 

opinion, the judgment was "entered in favor of plaintiff, Chicago Title Insurance 

Company on its claims for common law fraud, fraudulent inducement, 

fraudulent misrepresentation, and breach of covenant[.]" It was further ordered 

"that judgment be entered . . . against [d]efendants [UAH], . . . Bloch and . . . 

Bienenstock, jointly and severally, in the sum of [$1.3 million]."

Affirmed.