Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
8 New York opinions name it 1 courts 2005–2022 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New York courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Lum v. Antonelligreen2 sentences2012A certificate of acknowledgment attached to an instrument such as a deed or a mortgage raises the presumption of due execution, “which presumption . . . can be rebutted only after being weighed against any evidence adduced to show that the subject instrument was not duly executed” (Son Fong Lum v Antonelli, 102 AD2d 258, 260, 261 [1984], affd 64 NY2d 1158 [1985]; see Moffett v Gerardi, 75 AD3d 496, 498 [2010]; John Deere Ins. 2005A certificate of acknowledgment attached to an instrument such as a mortgage raises the presumption of due execution, which presumption, in a case such as this, can be rebutted only after being weighed against any evidence adduced to show that the instrument was not duly executed (see Lum v Antonelli, 102 AD2d 258, 260-261 [1984], affd 64 NY2d 1158 [1985]; see also Albin v First Nationwide Network Mtge. | 5 | 7 |
ABN AMRO Mortgage Group, Inc. v. Stephensgreen2 sentences2022Group, Inc. v Stephens , 91 AD3d 801, 803 , quoting Son Fong Lum v Antonelli , 102 AD2d 258, 260 , affd 64 NY2d 1158 ; see Lucky's Real Estate Group, LLC v Powell , 189 AD3d 1202, 1204 ). "'[A] certificate of acknowledgment should not be overthrown upon evidence of a doubtful character, such as the unsupported testimony of interested witnesses, nor upon a bare preponderance of evidence, but only on proof so clear and convincing as to amount to a moral certainty'" ( Bank of N.Y. 2020Group, Inc. v Stephens , 91 AD3d 801, 803 ; Cruz v Cruz , 37 AD3d 754, 754 ), "[a] certificate of acknowledgment attached to an instrument such as a deed or a mortgage raises the presumption of due execution, 'which presumption . . . can be rebutted only after being weighed against any evidence adduced to show that the subject instrument was not duly executed'" ( U.S. Bank N.A. v Goldin , 160 AD3d 1012 , 1013, quoting ABN AMRO Mtge. | 1 | 6 |
Cunningham v. Baldarigreen2 sentences2018Group, Inc. v Stephens , 91 AD3d 801, 803 , quoting Son Fong Lum v Antonelli , 102 AD2d 258, 260-261 , affd 64 NY2d 1158 ; see Kanterakis v Minos Realty I, LLC , 151 AD3d 950, 951 ; Tribeca Lending Corp. v Huseinovic , 151 AD3d 901, 902 ; Cunningham v Baldari , 100 AD3d 584, 585 ). 2017Group, Inc. v Stephens, 91 AD3d 801 , 803 [2012], quoting Son Fong Lum v Antonelli, 102 AD2d 258, 260-261 [1984], affd 64 NY2d 1158 [1985]; see Cunningham v Baldari, 100 AD3d 584, 585 [2012]). “ ‘[A] certificate of acknowledgment should not be overthrown upon evidence of a doubtful character, such as the unsupported testimony of interested witnesses, nor upon a bare preponderance of evidence, but only on proof so clear and convincing so as to amount to a moral certainty’ ” (Beshara v Beshara, 51 AD3d 837, 838 [2008], quoting Albany County Sav. | 1 | 2 |
Lucky's Real Estate Group, LLC v. Powellgreen1 sentence2022Group, Inc. v Stephens , 91 AD3d 801, 803 , quoting Son Fong Lum v Antonelli , 102 AD2d 258, 260 , affd 64 NY2d 1158 ; see Lucky's Real Estate Group, LLC v Powell , 189 AD3d 1202, 1204 ). "'[A] certificate of acknowledgment should not be overthrown upon evidence of a doubtful character, such as the unsupported testimony of interested witnesses, nor upon a bare preponderance of evidence, but only on proof so clear and convincing as to amount to a moral certainty'" ( Bank of N.Y. | 1 | 1 |
Kanterakis v. Minos Realty I, LLCgreen1 sentence2018Group, Inc. v Stephens , 91 AD3d 801, 803 , quoting Son Fong Lum v Antonelli , 102 AD2d 258, 260-261 , affd 64 NY2d 1158 ; see Kanterakis v Minos Realty I, LLC , 151 AD3d 950, 951 ; Tribeca Lending Corp. v Huseinovic , 151 AD3d 901, 902 ; Cunningham v Baldari , 100 AD3d 584, 585 ). | 1 | 1 |
Beshara v. Besharagreen1 sentence2017Group, Inc. v Stephens, 91 AD3d 801 , 803 [2012], quoting Son Fong Lum v Antonelli, 102 AD2d 258, 260-261 [1984], affd 64 NY2d 1158 [1985]; see Cunningham v Baldari, 100 AD3d 584, 585 [2012]). “ ‘[A] certificate of acknowledgment should not be overthrown upon evidence of a doubtful character, such as the unsupported testimony of interested witnesses, nor upon a bare preponderance of evidence, but only on proof so clear and convincing so as to amount to a moral certainty’ ” (Beshara v Beshara, 51 AD3d 837, 838 [2008], quoting Albany County Sav. | 1 | 1 |
Moffett v. Gerardigreen1 sentence2012A certificate of acknowledgment attached to an instrument such as a deed or a mortgage raises the presumption of due execution, “which presumption . . . can be rebutted only after being weighed against any evidence adduced to show that the subject instrument was not duly executed” (Son Fong Lum v Antonelli, 102 AD2d 258, 260, 261 [1984], affd 64 NY2d 1158 [1985]; see Moffett v Gerardi, 75 AD3d 496, 498 [2010]; John Deere Ins. | 1 | 1 |
John Deere Insurance Co. v. GBE/Alasia Corp.green1 sentence2012Co. v GBE/Alasia Corp., 57 AD3d 620, 621 [2008]; Olympus Servicing, L.P. v Lee, 56 AD3d 537 [2008]; 39 Coll. | 1 | 1 |
Albin v. First Nationwide Network Mortgage Co.green1 sentence2005Co., 248 AD2d 417, 418 [1998]). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New York. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Lum v. Antonelli
green
2 sentences2012A certificate of acknowledgment attached to an instrument such as a deed or a mortgage raises the presumption of due execution, “which presumption . . . can be rebutted only after being weighed against any evidence adduced to show that the subject instrument was not duly executed” (Son Fong Lum v Antonelli, 102 AD2d 258, 260, 261 [1984], affd 64 NY2d 1158 [1985]; see Moffett v Gerardi, 75 AD3d 496, 498 [2010]; John Deere Ins. 2005A certificate of acknowledgment attached to an instrument such as a mortgage raises the presumption of due execution, which presumption, in a case such as this, can be rebutted only after being weighed against any evidence adduced to show that the instrument was not duly executed (see Lum v Antonelli, 102 AD2d 258, 260-261 [1984], affd 64 NY2d 1158 [1985]; see also Albin v First Nationwide Network Mtge. | 7 | 2005–2022 |
Cruz v. Cruz
green
1 sentence2020Group, Inc. v Stephens , 91 AD3d 801, 803 ; Cruz v Cruz , 37 AD3d 754, 754 ), "[a] certificate of acknowledgment attached to an instrument such as a deed or a mortgage raises the presumption of due execution, 'which presumption . . . can be rebutted only after being weighed against any evidence adduced to show that the subject instrument was not duly executed'" ( U.S. Bank N.A. v Goldin , 160 AD3d 1012 , 1013, quoting ABN AMRO Mtge. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Tribeca Lending Corp. v. Huseinovic
green
1 sentence2018Group, Inc. v Stephens , 91 AD3d 801, 803 , quoting Son Fong Lum v Antonelli , 102 AD2d 258, 260-261 , affd 64 NY2d 1158 ; see Kanterakis v Minos Realty I, LLC , 151 AD3d 950, 951 ; Tribeca Lending Corp. v Huseinovic , 151 AD3d 901, 902 ; Cunningham v Baldari , 100 AD3d 584, 585 ). | 1 | 2018–2018 |