Abruzzese v Pisacano
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Real property—quiet title under Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL) article 15 [quiet title to real property]; dispute over whether title passed by an ambiguous deed or by a later correction deed, including issues of delivery and acceptance.
Denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment; searched the record and granted summary judgment to defendant, effectively declaring title conveyed via the correction deed rather than the prior deed.
The grant of summary judgment to the defendant based on the court’s search of the record and the declaration that the correction deed controlled.
The record did not establish defendant’s entitlement to judgment as a matter of law; triable issues of fact remain, including delivery and acceptance of the correction deed, and the underlying deed is facially ambiguous.
Background
Plaintiff Doreen M. Abruzzese commenced a Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL) article 15 [quiet title to real property] action to quiet title to real property in East Marion, claiming through a prior deed. Defendant Ethel Pisacano claimed title through a subsequent correction deed. The language of the plaintiff’s deed is ambiguous, and there are factual disputes over delivery and acceptance of the correction deed. The Supreme Court (Suffolk County) denied plaintiff’s summary judgment motion and, after searching the record, granted summary judgment to defendant declaring the correction deed governed.
Lower Court Decision
Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Hackeling, J.) denied the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the complaint, searched the record, and awarded summary judgment to the defendant, effectively declaring that title to the East Marion property was conveyed by a correction deed rather than the prior deed.
Appellate Division Reversal
Modified to delete the provision searching the record and granting summary judgment to the defendant; otherwise affirmed. The Appellate Division held the plaintiff failed to make a prima facie showing due to facial ambiguity in her deed and unresolved factual questions, including delivery and acceptance of the correction deed. It further held the defendant was not entitled to summary judgment because the same triable issues preclude judgment as a matter of law.
Legal Significance
Reaffirms summary judgment standards in quiet title actions under RPAPL article 15 [quiet title to real property]: the movant must make a prima facie showing of title or the opponent’s lack thereof, and if the deed is ambiguous, extrinsic evidence and surrounding circumstances may be considered. Under Real Property Law § 240(3) [requires real property instruments be construed according to the parties’ intent as gathered from the whole instrument and consistent with law], deed construction turns on intent reflected in the instrument; unexpressed subjective intentions are irrelevant unless ambiguity exists. Courts may not ‘search the record’ to grant summary judgment where triable issues of fact remain, including delivery and acceptance of a correction deed.
Ambiguous deed language and disputed delivery/acceptance of a correction deed create triable issues that defeat summary judgment for either side in a quiet title action; a court cannot cure a movant’s failure by searching the record to award judgment to the adversary.