Background
An impostor appeared at a June 2015 closing and purported to sell Edward Perkins’s Bayside property to 34 215 St, LLC. Nick Vitucci, a notary and title closer for Equity Settlement Services, reviewed the impostor’s driver’s license and notarized signatures on the deed and related mortgage.
Perkins later sued to quiet title and asserted notarial-misconduct and negligence claims against Vitucci, Equity, and others. He alleged that the fraudulent recording led to damage to the property and removal of copper piping by the buyer’s principal. Supreme Court allowed parts of the claims against Vitucci and Equity to continue, and they appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The Second Department reversed those rulings. Vitucci established that he followed the statutory identification-verification duties imposed by Real Property Law § 303 and 19 NYCRR 182.5. Perkins produced no evidence that the driver’s license was obviously false or contained warning signs that should have alerted the notary. The notarial-misconduct and related negligence claims against Vitucci therefore failed.
Equity also obtained dismissal. A title company retained by one party ordinarily owes no negligence duty to another participant absent fraud, collusion, or special circumstances. The evidence showed that Equity did not know the seller was an impostor and did not act negligently; Perkins alleged no relationship with the company that could support a separate duty.
The ruling addressed the liability of the notary and title company, not the validity of the impostor’s conveyance or every claim against other participants. But it cut off efforts to make these closing professionals answer for downstream physical-property losses without evidence that their own verification or conduct was deficient.
Key Takeaways
- A New York notary can obtain summary judgment by proving compliance with governing identity-verification rules.
- The victim must identify objective warning signs or other proof that the presented identification was suspect.
- A title company hired by another party generally owes no negligence duty to the nonclient without fraud, collusion, or special circumstances.
Why It Matters
Deed theft creates severe losses, but Perkins underscores that loss alone does not establish professional negligence. Owners and counsel must develop the closing record: the identification shown, verification steps, communications, anomalies, and the contracting relationships among the parties.
Title agencies and notaries should retain contemporaneous identity records and document compliance with current regulations. Real-estate litigators should separately analyze quiet-title remedies, claims against wrongdoers, title-policy rights, and whether facts create a duty running from a closing professional to the property owner.