From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Decaudin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 18, 2008
49 A.D.3d 694 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)

Opinion

No. 2006-10453.

March 18, 2008.

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant Naida I. Velazquez appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Smith, J.), dated September 25, 2006, as denied her motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against her.

Singleton and Singleton, Mount Kisco, N.Y. (Thomas J. Singleton of counsel), for appellant.

DelBello Donnellan Weingarten Wise Wiederkehr, LLP, White Plains, N.Y. (Jacob E. Amir of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Spolzino, J.P., Santucci, Angiolillo and Balkin, JJ.


Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

A motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1) may be granted only where "the documentary evidence that forms the basis of the defense [is] such that it resolves all factual issues as a matter of law, and conclusively disposes of the plaintiffs claims" ( Saxony Ice Co., Div. of Springfield Ice Co., Inc. v Ultimate Energy Rest. Corp., 27 AD3d 445, 446; see Museum Trading Co. v Bantry, 281 AD2d 524, 525). The documentary evidence submitted by the defendant Naida I. Velazquez was sufficient to demonstrate that the subject conveyance to the defendant Bruno Decaudin was unauthorized. The conveyance was made by one of the two attorneys-in-fact of Velazquez's mother, in disregard of the requirement set forth in the power of attorney that they "act together" ( see Unterberg v Elder, 211 NY 499; General Obligations Law § 5-1501; 1-11 Warren's Weed, New York Real Property, Attorney-in-Fact § 11.25 [5th ed]). Nonetheless, an unauthorized conveyance may be ratified by the subsequent acts of the principal ( see Lipman v Vebeliunas, 39 AD3d 488, 490; Alexandru v Berritt, 168 AD2d 472, 474; Rende Esposito Consultants v St. Augustine's R. C. Church, 131 AD2d 740, 743; Diocese of Buffalo v McCarthy, 91 AD2d 213). Since the documentary evidence does not establish the absence of ratification, the motion was properly denied.

Velazquez's remaining contentions are without merit.


Summaries of

HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Decaudin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 18, 2008
49 A.D.3d 694 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)
Case details for

HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Decaudin

Case Details

Full title:HSBC BANK USA, N.A., Respondent, v. BRUNO DECAUDIN et al., Defendants, and…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Mar 18, 2008

Citations

49 A.D.3d 694 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)
2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 2556
854 N.Y.S.2d 184

Citing Cases

Talbi v. Boulevard Taxi Leasing, Inc.

"A motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) may be granted only where 'the documentary evidence that…

S. Hill Bus. Campus, LLC v. ASI Energy, LLC

Maldonado v. DiBre, 140 AD3d 1501, 1505 (3rd Dept. 2016; see New York State Workers' Compensation Bd. v.…