Majority
OPINION OF THE COURT
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs, and the certified question answered in the affirmative.
In connection with the mortgage foreclosure action, defendant has alleged sufficient facts to warrant denial of plaintiffs prediscovery motion for summary judgment, having asserted that plaintiff, an attorney who was then her paramour, secured the mortgage through fraud and overreaching and by exploiting a fiduciary relationship with her (see generally Matter of Greiff, 92 NY2d 341 , 345 [1998]). She contends that, under the guise of buying her a condominium, he induced her to enter into a mortgage arrangement whereby he was the lender and she the borrower. Furthermore,
Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Grapfeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur in memorandum.
On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed, etc.
Cases cited
- In re the Estate of Greiff 92 NY2d 341 at 345 p. 775
- Tuck v. Tuck 14 NY2d 341 at 344 p. 776