Giannone v Silvestri 2026 NY Slip Op 30171(U) February 4, 2026 Supreme Court, Tioga County Docket Number: Index No. 2024-00064107 Judge: Eugene D. Faughnan is a classic fraudster story. Property owner acquires title to property in 2014 through a bankruptcy sale. People are brought to the property, told it is for sale, and sign a contract. Problem is that the “seller” is not the actual owner. Chaos ensues after a closing.

“his case involves ownership of real property located at 211 Weiss Road in the Town of
Tioga. Plaintiff, Robert Giannone commenced an action to quiet title to the property pursuant to Article 15 of the Real Property and Proceedings Law. Plaintiff claims that, despite Silvestri and Lamb filing a deed to the property on September 30, 2024, Plaintiff is the rightful owner, having obtained title to the property via a bankruptcy sale on January 27, 2014 for $81,500, and that he has not transferred his ownership.
The Silvestri and Lamb deed was filed by Pasto Law Firm, P.C., which had been retained
by Defendants to handle the closing. The purchase price was listed as $80,000, and the closing statement shows the total cost of purchase as $81,336.81 when including filing fees and tax payments. Notwithstanding that deed, Plaintiff claims that the 2024 deed is a forgery and that he never sold his property to the Defendants. He points out that the notarization of his signature was made by a Texas notary on September 13, 2024, but that Plaintiff lives in New Jersey, further supporting a conclusion that the signature on the deed was not his.
According to Defendants, they were looking to buy land in the Tioga County area to be
used for hunting and other recreational purposes. Defendants worked with Tom Bronk, from Howard Hanna Real Estate Services (“Howard Hanna”), to help locate a suitable property. The property was listed in a posting by Howard Hanna. Believing the property to be for sale, Silvestri and Lamb walked the property with Bronk on July 21, 2024 and made an offer to purchase the property. The following day, they signed a purchase offer, which was apparently accepted by an impostor purporting to be the owner. The person posing as the owner/seller has never been identified.
Defendants retained Rhonda Pasto, with Pasto Law Firm, to handle the purchase and
closing. The purported owner/seller was represented by Thomas Collison and Meagher
Attorneys at Law (“TCM”), and TCM provided an Abstract of Title Continuation. The closing took place at the Law offices ofTCM on September 27, 2024. The deed transfer was pre-signed, supposedly by Giannone, and contains a notarization from Minerva Hollingsworth, who is employed by Great American Title Company of Baytown, Texas (“Great American Title”). Subsequent to the closing, information was obtained that Ms. Hollingsworth’s notary stamp was compromised. Defendants assert that Great American has dealt with multiple fraudulent transfers because of that notary breach.

To summarize, it appears that some unknown person pretended to own the vacant
premises, enticed Silvestri and Lamb to make a purchase offer, then forged Giannone’s signature on the deed utilizing a fake notarization. By pre-signing the deed, the impostor did not have to appear at the clos~g, which proceeded, and resulted in Silvestri and Lamb obtaininged filing a deed to the property. Sometime later, Giannone discovered that someone else was claiming to be the owner of this property, and signed a deed without his knowledge.”

“CPLR § 3016(b) also states that “[ w ]here a cause of action or defense is based upon
misrepresentation, fraud, mistake, wilful default, breach of trust or undue influence, the
circumstances constituting the wrong shall be stated in detail.” Accordingly, it has been
recognized that an action based on fraud is subject to a heightened pleading standard. See, Garza v. Nunz Realty LLC, 187 AD3d 467 (1 st Dept. 2020); Orchard Hotel LLC v. D.A.B. Group LLC, 172 AD3d 530 (1st Dept. 2019). The purpose of the heightened pleading standard is to inform the defendant of the acts giving rise to the claim of fraud. Vague allegations will not be sufficient to sustain a claim for fraud.

However, “section 3016 (b) should not be so strictly interpreted as to prevent an
otherwise valid cause.of action in situations where it may be impossible to state in detail the circumstances constituting a fraud … Thus, where concrete facts are peculiarly within the knowledge of the party charged with the fraud, it would work a potentially unnecessary injustice to dismiss a case at an early stage where any pleading deficiency might be cured later in the proceedings” Pludeman v. Northern Leasing Sys., Inc., 10 NY3d 486, 491-492 (2008) (internal quotation marks, citations and end citations omitted); see, Neptune Issue Inc. Profit Sharing Plan v. Eliopoulos, 242 AD3d 1474 (3rd Dept. 2025).

In the instant matter, while all three motions are correct that Silvestri and Lamb have not provided much detail as to the alleged fraud committed by any of the Third-Party Defendants, the Court concludes that the flaw does not require dismissal. The underlying premise of the Defendants’ claims is that they were duped into signing a contract to purchase property from a fraudster, who ultimately did not actually own the property. Defendants were misled into believing they were dealing with a person who had a legal right to convey the property. Plaintiff claims to be unaware of who falsely posed as owner of the property; Silvestri and Lamb did not ever meet the person who signed the deed to them, nor do they have any information concerning that person or how they came to be involved in this transaction. Since the identity of the impostor was concealed from Silvestri and Lamb, and they were unaware that the person from
whom they were purchasing the land did not really own it, it is understandable, and unavoidable, that Defendants would not be able to provide particularity. They do not have details of how this occurred; if they knew, they might have been able to avoid the scam in the first place. On the other hand, other parties, including the proposed Third-Party Defendants would more likely be in possession of the facts concerning the alleged fraud, or how it occurred. Ultimately, it may be that the unidentified fraudster is the only culpable party and concealed all pertinent facts from everyone, but Silvestri and Lamb should at least be able to conduct discovery to determine the role, if any, of other parties in the transaction, or any details that could shed light on how the fraud occurred. If appropriate, Silvestri and Lamb may need to amend their Third- Party
Complaint and/or file a Bill of Particulars to reflect any information that comes to light during discovery. Furthermore, a motion, or motions, for summary judgment can be made in the future depending on what facts are revealed during discovery. Therefore, the Court will not dismiss the fraud claim on the basis that it has not been set forth with particularity.· That determination only addresses the heightened pleading aspect, but the Third-Party Defendants have also raised other grounds for dismissal of the fraud claim.”