New York Consumer Rights & Foreclosure Defense Representation by Application / (718) 957-8140 Call Now
Attorney Advertising
Case Study · Deed Fraud · Kings County

Sold a lie.We went to trial.Deed voided.

$0Paid for her propertySigned on a false promise. The Court sided with her.

Signed away your property on a false promise? Petroff Amshen LLP is a New York consumer rights and foreclosure defense law firm. We take cases like yours to court.

Free case review. Confidential. Representation is by application.

The Result
What our client was paid for her property
$0
We proved it at trial. She got nothing for it.
The 2008 deed
Voided
We won after a July 30, 2026 trial. Void from the start.
The public record
Canceled
The Court ordered the Clerk to cancel the deed.
Supreme Court, Kings County · 2026
Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Every case turns on its own facts.
The Case

She was told it was a short sale.
After trial, the Court voided the deed.

Quick AnswerOn August 4, 2026, after a trial held July 30, 2026, Justice Richard J. Montelione of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Kings County, voided a December 1, 2008 deed in a case against Laurel Avenue Properties, Inc. The Court found that Petroff Amshen's client was fraudulently induced to sign the deed by being led to believe the company would conduct a short sale, and that she received no consideration for the transfer. It held the deed "was executed under false pretenses and was therefore void ab initio," that no statute of limitations applies to a void deed under Faison v. Lewis, and directed the County Clerk to void and cancel the deed forthwith.

What happened to our client

Our client became the owner of a property in Brooklyn in April 2007. On December 1, 2008, she signed a deed transferring it to a company called Laurel Avenue Properties, Inc.

She had no lawyer at that closing. She did not know what a "short sale" was, but that is what she was led to believe the company would do. A short sale is a sale of a property, usually with the lender's approval, for less than what is owed on it. What she actually signed was a deed handing the property to Laurel Avenue Properties. Nobody told her she could cancel the transfer or get a lawyer first. She received nothing in return.

The deed was recorded in January 2009, and for years it sat on the public record in the company's name. In 2018, she sued, claiming the company had fraudulently induced her to sign it.

The trial

The case was filed in March 2018 and tried in Supreme Court, Kings County on July 30, 2026, before Justice Richard J. Montelione. Our client was the only witness. Laurel Avenue Properties was barred by an earlier court order from presenting any testimony at trial.

Based on the trial evidence, the Court found that our client "was fraudulently induced to sign the deed conveying her interest by being led to believe" that Laurel Avenue Properties would conduct a short sale. It also found that she was unrepresented, was never told she could cancel or consult a lawyer, and received no consideration for the transfer.

Why the deed could not stand

A deed obtained by false pretenses is void and conveys no title. The Court applied that rule and held the deed void from the very beginning. In other words, the deed never transferred anything.

The deed was executed under false pretenses and was therefore void ab initio.Decision and Order After Trial, August 4, 2026

The deed was signed in 2008, and the case reached trial in 2026. That gap did not save it. Relying on the Court of Appeals' decision in Faison v. Lewis, the Court held that there is no statute of limitations for a deed that is void from the start. So the Court ordered the County Clerk to void and cancel the deed, forthwith. The Decision and Order After Trial is dated August 4, 2026, five days after the trial ended.

The result

  • The December 1, 2008 deed to Laurel Avenue Properties, Inc. declared void from the start.
  • The County Clerk directed to void and cancel the deed forthwith.
  • A finding, after trial, that our client was fraudulently induced to sign by being led to believe a short sale would take place.
  • Trial held July 30, 2026, with our client as the only witness.
She was promised a short sale. The Court found false pretenses.
Timeline

Signed in 2008.
Voided in 2026.

What she was told
A short sale.
What she signed
A deed to the company.
What the Court found
"Executed under false pretenses." Void.

The Court found she was fraudulently induced to sign and received no consideration.

  1. 2007
    She becomes the owner.
  2. Dec 2008
    Told it is a short sale, she signs a deed.
  3. 2018
    We sue to void the deed.
  4. 2020
    The company is barred from offering evidence.
  5. Jul 2026
    Trial. Our client is the only witness.
  6. Aug 2026
    The deed is voided.
The Legal Record · Deed Fraud

False pretenses.
That was the case.

The record, in order: what she got, how long the law allows, and what the Court held on each point.

What she got for the property · the Court's finding
$0
No payment for the transfer. No lawyer at the closing. Never told she could cancel or get one.
The deadline to undo a void deed · Faison v. Lewis
None
A deed obtained by false pretenses is void from the start. No statute of limitations protects it.
The pointWhat we provedThe Court held
01
She was led to believe it was a short sale.Fraudulent inducement
What we provedAt the December 1, 2008 closing our client had no lawyer, was unfamiliar with the term "short sale," and was never told she could cancel the transfer or seek counsel.
The Court heldFound
She "was fraudulently induced to sign the deed conveying her interest by being led to believe" that Laurel Avenue Properties, Inc. would conduct a short sale.
02
She received nothing.Consideration
What we provedOur client testified that the transfer gave her nothing in return.
The Court heldFound
She "received no consideration for the transfer."
03
A deed obtained by false pretenses is void.Void ab initio
What we provedThe deed was the product of the false promise of a short sale.
The Court heldVoid
The deed "was executed under false pretenses and was therefore void ab initio." Such a deed is void and conveys no title.
04
No deadline protects a void deed.Faison v. Lewis (Ct. App. 2015)
What we provedThe deed was signed in 2008 and recorded in January 2009. The case went to trial in 2026.
The Court heldFor our client
There is no statute of limitations where a deed is void ab initio. The County Clerk is directed to void and cancel the deed forthwith.
Signed in 2008. Voided in 2026.No deadline on a void deed.
Signed away a property on a false promise?
A licensed New York attorney reviews every application. Free and confidential.
Apply for Your Case Review
Legal Analysis · Plain English

What the Court decided,
and why it matters.

1. A deed obtained by false pretenses is void

New York has long held that a deed obtained by false pretenses is void and conveys no title. The Court cited that rule, as restated by the Second Department in July 2026, and found the deed here was executed under false pretenses: our client signed because she was led to believe a short sale would take place.

2. Void means void from the start

A void deed is not just open to challenge; it never had legal effect. That is what "void ab initio" means. It also means no one can claim to be a good-faith purchaser or lender for value through it, because there was never any title to pass.

3. No deadline protects a void deed

Most claims have a time limit. But in Faison v. Lewis (2015), the Court of Appeals held that a deed that is void from the start cannot be saved by the passage of time. The Court applied that rule to a deed signed more than 17 years earlier.

4. Facts win these cases

The findings that decided this case came from what happened at one closing in 2008: no lawyer, no understanding of the term "short sale," no notice of a right to cancel or to seek counsel, and nothing received in return. Our client was the only witness, and the Court's findings about that closing came from her own testimony.

What this means if you signed away a property on a false promise

Our client signed because she was told a short sale was going to happen. If you signed a deed on a promise like that and later found out the property was no longer yours, the years that have passed may not be the obstacle you think.

If something like this happened to you, keep every paper you signed, and write down what you were told while you still remember it. Every case turns on its own evidence, and this one went all the way through trial.

Questions

Questions people search
about deed fraud in New York.

Can you void a deed obtained by fraud in New York?
Yes. Under long-standing New York law, a deed obtained by false pretenses is void and conveys no title. In this case against Laurel Avenue Properties, Inc., a Brooklyn court voided a 2008 deed after trial and directed the County Clerk to cancel it.
What is the difference between a void deed and a voidable deed?
A void deed never transferred anything and has no legal effect from the start. A voidable deed transfers title until a court sets it aside. The Court here held the deed was void ab initio because it was executed under false pretenses.
Is there a statute of limitations to challenge a fraudulent deed in New York?
Under the Court of Appeals' decision in Faison v. Lewis (2015), no statute of limitations applies to a deed that is void from the start. The Court here applied that rule to a deed signed in 2008.
What is a short sale?
A sale of a property, usually with the lender's approval, for less than what is owed on it. Our client was led to believe a company would conduct one. Instead she signed a deed handing it the property.
What is fraudulent inducement?
Getting someone to sign an agreement or deed through a false statement or promise. The Court found our client was fraudulently induced to sign by being led to believe the company would conduct a short sale.
What does it mean that she received no consideration?
Consideration is what a person gets in exchange in a transaction, such as the price for a property. The Court found our client received none for the transfer.
Can a buyer who got the property through a fraudulent deed be protected as a good-faith purchaser?
No. New York law holds that no one can be a bona fide purchaser or encumbrancer for value through a deed obtained by false pretenses, because such a deed conveys no title.
What happens when a court voids a deed?
The court directs the County Clerk to void and cancel it on the public record. Here the Court ordered the Clerk to do so forthwith, meaning at once.
What is a preclusion order?
An order barring a party from presenting evidence. Here a self-executing order dated October 26, 2020 barred the company from presenting any testimony at trial.
Do I need a lawyer to challenge a deed I was tricked into signing?
Cases like this are won on facts and decided at trial. Our client's case went all the way through trial, where the Court's findings came from her own testimony.
How long did this case take?
The case was filed on March 29, 2018, tried on July 30, 2026, and decided on August 4, 2026, five days after trial.
Does Petroff Amshen represent clients outside New York?
No. Petroff Amshen represents clients in New York only.
Glossary: the terms in plain English
Deed
The document that transfers ownership of real property from one person or company to another.
Recording
Filing a deed on the public record with the City Register, so anyone checking title can see it.
Short sale
A sale of a property, usually with the lender's approval, for less than what is owed on it.
Fraudulent inducement
Getting someone to sign through a false statement or promise. Found here.
False pretenses
A false representation used to obtain property. A deed obtained this way is void.
Void ab initio
Void from the very beginning. The document never had legal effect.
Consideration
What a person receives in exchange in a transaction. Our client received none.
Bona fide purchaser
A good-faith buyer for value. No one can be one through a void deed.
Statute of limitations
The deadline to bring a claim. It does not protect a deed that is void from the start.
Preclusion order
An order barring a party from presenting evidence. Here it barred the company from testifying at trial.
Petroff Amshen Reviews

What clients
have said.

★★★★★

I could not recommend a better group than Petroff Amshen. If you find yourself in a situation that requires the assistance of attorneys, this is the firm.

Eli Miller / Google
Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
★★★★★

After years of battling in court, thousands of dollars in legal fees, and quite a few subpar attorneys, we found Petroff and Amshen, who delivered winning results. They're incredibly easy to talk to, making the whole legal process feel less intimidating.

Charlene J. / Google
Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
★★★★★

An effective firm with a minimum of fuss. When you need attorneys who actually do the work, you need these guys on your side.

Joseph Petruzzo / Google
Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
Apply for Your Case Review

Tell the firm
what happened.

Petroff Amshen does not take every case. Submit the application and a licensed New York attorney will review the matter directly. The case review is free and confidential.

  • 01Submissions are confidential.
  • 02Reviewed by a licensed New York attorney, not a call center.
  • 03Most applications are reviewed within one business day.
  • 04If the matter fits the practice, the firm reaches out to schedule a consultation. If not, the firm says so.
  • 05Fee structure is discussed at the consultation.
If you would rather call
(718) 957-8140
Application for Case Review

Submitting this form does not create an attorney-client relationship. Petroff Amshen LLP does not sell, share, or disclose this information to any third party. All submissions are confidential and reviewed by a licensed New York attorney.