You are here: / / PURUSANT TO CPL 420.25, SUPREME COURT PROPERLY DECLARED A DEED WHICH WAS...
,

PURUSANT TO CPL 420.25, SUPREME COURT PROPERLY DECLARED A DEED WHICH WAS THE SUBJECT OF AN OFFERING-A-FALSE-INSTRUMENT-FOR-FILING CONVICTION VOID AB INITIO; THE ARGUMENT THE PEOPLE MUST PROVE THE SIGNATURES ON THE DEED ARE FORGED WAS REJECTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Quirk, determined the Criminal Procedure Law allows the court to declare a deed void ab initio where a deed is the subject of a offering-a-false-instrument-for-filing conviction. The argument the People were required to prove the signatures on the deed were forged was rejected:

This appeal presents issues with respect to CPL 420.45, a statute enacted in 2019 that permits a court, upon motion and after a hearing, to order that an instrument affecting real property be declared void ab initio when, as relevant here, a defendant has been convicted of offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree and the instrument is material to the encumbrance, transfer, or purchase of real property. Nonparty Bil-Man Asset Management, LLC (hereinafter the appellant), contends that CPL 420.45 applies only to deeds containing forged signatures and that the People failed to establish that the deed at issue here was forged. The appellant further contends that it rebutted the presumption under CPL 420.45 that the deed at issue was void ab initio. … Supreme Court properly granted the People’s motion, in effect, pursuant to CPL 420.45 to declare the deed void ab initio. * * *

Each guilty plea arose out of a scheme by the defendant and the codefendant to defraud the defendant’s mother, Marta Merino, out of certain real property that she owned in Brooklyn (hereinafter the property). Specifically, the defendant admitted … she recorded a deed (hereinafter the fraudulent deed) with the Office of the City Register of New York that purported to transfer title to the property from her mother to herself. She also admitted … she recorded a second deed, transferring title to the property from herself to 523 73rd Street, LLC, of which she was a member, and that there was never any agreement between the defendant and her mother that the defendant would hold title to the property. The defendant and the codefendant admitted that they stole loan proceeds from the appellant by means of a fraudulent mortgage on the property. * * *

… [T]he plain language of CPL 420.45 does not limit its application to deeds containing forged signatures. People v Merino, 2026 NY Slip Op 05196, Second Dept 9-2-26

Practice Point: Consult this opinion for an in-depth discussion of when a real-property-related instrument which is the subject of an offering-a-false-instrument-for-filing conviction can be declared void ab initio by the court. The People need not prove the signatures on the instrument are forged.

 

You might also like
DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED (1) HE WAS MISADVISED THAT HIS GUILTY PLEA WOULD NOT RESULT IN DEPORTATION AND (2), HAD HE BEEN PROPERLY ADVISED, A DECISION TO GO TO TRIAL WOULD HAVE BEEN RATIONAL; DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION WAS PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
ABSENCE OF A SIGNED WRITTEN WAIVER OF INDICTMENT REQUIRED BY THE NYS CONSTITUTION IS A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT, GUILTY PLEA VACATED (SECOND DEPT).
Abuse Finding, Based Upon an Unsatisfactory Explanation for the Child’s Injury, Reversed Based Upon the Testimony of Petitioner’s Medical Witness Who Stated the Injury Could Have Been Caused by a Fall and Described the Child as Basically Asymptomatic and Happy at the Hospital
DEFENDANT’S ATTEMPTED ASSAULT CONVICTION WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (SECOND DEPT).
APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, ALTHOUGH THE EXCUSE WAS NOT REASONABLE, THE NOTICE WAS ONLY TWO WEEKS LATE AND THERE WAS NO SHOWING DEFENDANT WAS PREJUDICED (SECOND DEPT).
AFTER OBTAINING AN UNPAID JUDGMENT AGAINST THE INSURED, PLAINTIFF PROPERLY SUED THE INSURER WHICH HAD DISCLAIMED COVERAGE ALLEGING THE INSURED HAD REFUSED TO COOPERATE; THE PROOF OF THE INSURED’S ALLEGED FAILURE TO COOPERATE WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST THE INSURER WAS PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THE CUSTODY RULING SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN MADE WITHOUT A BEST INTERESTS HEARING; FATHER’S PARENTAL ACCESS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONDITIONED ON COMPLIANCE WITH TREATMENT (SECOND DEPT).
There Must Be a Determination of Paternity Before Making an Abandonment Finding

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

PURSUANT TO CPL 30.30(2)(A), THE 90-DAY SPEEDY TRIAL CLOCK DOES NOT COUNT DAYS... HERE IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, PLAINTIFF FILED A REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL INTERVENTION...