Preview:

Johnson v Von Ross (2011 NY Slip Op 50148(U))
[*1]


Decided on February 7, 2011
Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County

90955/10
Cheryl J. Gonzales, J.
In this holdover proceeding, petitioner seeks possession of the subject one family house based on the allegation that respondents are squatters. Petitioner served a ten-day notice to quit on August 26, 2010, which alleges that respondents entered into possession without petitioner's permission and demands that respondents vacate the premises on or before August 31, 2010. Respondents appeared pro se in this proceeding.
At trial, respondent Von Ross testified that he met petitioner around February 2008 during a period
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/NY/1/2011_50148.htm[4/21/2013 12:12:58 PM] Johnson v Von Ross (2011 NY Slip Op 50148(U))
in which she was trying to complete a short sale on the subject property. Petitioner had already attempted to complete a short sale, but there was a problem with the paperwork. Respondent began assisting petitioner with the short sale, and at some point decided that he would be the purchaser in the short sale. Respondent testified that on or about January 12, 2009, petitioner signed a quit claim deed transferring her interest in the property to him as evidence of their agreement. Respondent claims that in January 2009, he made an agreement with petitioner to move into the property, and began doing repair work in the building. Mr. Ross also testified that petitioner visited him at the property on a few occasions and brought contractors for respondent to consider hiring to do the work. Respondent began renovation work in January 2009, and moved into the house in August 2009.
Petitioner submitted into evidence a certified copy of a recorded deed which reflects that the subject property was transferred to petitioner on February 7, 2007. Petitioner acknowledged that she executed the quit claim deed, but did not read what she was signing. Also, petitioner states that she believed that she was signing the property over to Gold Street Marketing Co., which is the company she hired to complete the short sale for her. Respondent is affiliated with Gold Street Marketing Co. Petitioner testified that respondent asked her to execute the deed because he wanted some evidence of his authority to enter the property, and petitioner complied with his request. Petitioner explained that the house was not occupied, and there had been problems with prior tenants. Petitioner asked her neighbors to call if they heard anything at the property. Petitioner's stated that her neighbor did call on one occasion after hearing activity in the house. [*2]In addition, petitioner claims that respondent first entered the property to place a security dog in the building.
Petitioner asserts that only her recorded deed can be considered as evidence of ownership of the property. Although the quit claim deed is unrecorded, it can validly transfer petitioner's interest in the property. Recording of the deed serves the function of giving notice to others of the property interest, and does not create an interest in the property. RPL

Download 2011_50148.pdf

New York Law