Article 78 proceeding to determine validity of unpaid water and sewer charges assessed against real property by City of New York Department of Environment Protection dismissed. Petitioner objected to the water and sewer charges and subsequently entered into a settlement agreement with the City agency. After petitioner performed the settlement agreement by paying stipulated amounts, the City demanded payment of the balance of charges. Court held the Department of Environment Protection had no authority to enter into an accord and satisfaction of the charges.

Surrogate’s Court denied summary judgment dismissing executrix challenging no consideration conveyance of real property owned by decedent to respondent attorney in fact pursuant to a recorded power of attorney which specifically authorized gifts to the respondent.  Court held the fact the power of attorney was recorded and not revoked of record did not establish authority of respondent to gift property to herself. The premises was subsequently mortgaged by attorney in fact to co-respondent lender bank. The Court held if the lender bank did not have notice of the attorney’s alleged lack of authority to gift the premises to herself, any vacature of the conveyance would be subject to the mortgagee’s interest, as the mortgage was a bone fide encumbrancer for value.

Appellate Division, Second Department, upheld summary judgment dismissing tender bank’s claims to declare an equitable lien against wife’s interest in the premises as joint tenant with her husband with right of survivorship.  At the closing for the sale of the premises to husband and wife, only the husband signed the mortgage and note granted to the lender bank. When the note went into default, the bank sought to foreclose its mortgage but was unable to foreclose to judgment against wife’s interest because she did not sign the mortgage. This action in equity ensued. By virtue of the loan application and the closing documents, the Court held the parties had no intent to grant a mortgage against wife’s interest as a matter of law. This case demonstrates the care that must be followed to ensure all parties taking any interest in the mortgaged premises sign the mortgage granted as security for payment of the indebtedness.