670 B.R. 657
Bankr. E.D.N.Y.2025Background
- Dispute concerns the ownership of 1999 Deerfield Road, Watermill, NY, transferred by deed in 2015 from 2027 Deerfield Ltd. (owned by George Guldi) to RJT Food & Restaurant, LLC (Debtor), which then mortgaged the property for $1.4 million.
- Plaintiffs allege the 2015 deed and the resulting mortgages are fraudulent and seek to have the property title returned and the mortgages voided.
- Defendants, including the Debtor and Mortgagee Defendants (Danmik Investors LLC, Estate of Robert Voto, and others), argue the transfer was part of a scheme—allegedly designed by Guldi—to shield assets from creditors and criminal forfeiture.
- Prior state quiet title action (2016-2022) ended in a judgment confirming the Debtor's ownership and barring adverse claims, including from DB Central (controlled by Guldi), with no challenges made by Plaintiffs at the time.
- Plaintiffs commenced this federal adversary proceeding in 2024 after bankruptcy was filed to halt foreclosure, raising claims against the title transfer and mortgages.
- The Court decided cross-motions for summary judgment, focusing on preclusion doctrines (judicial estoppel, res judicata) and equitable defenses.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fraudulent 2015 Deed | Guldi: Deed was fraudulently executed, should be voided | Defendants: Deed was part of Guldi's own scheme (asset shielding); Plaintiffs sat on rights | Court held Plaintiffs are judicially estopped from challenging the deed; dismissed claims |
| Effect of Quiet Title Judgment | Guldi: Not binding on Plaintiffs or the property’s true ownership | Defendants: Plaintiffs are in privity with parties bound by state judgment (DB Central) | Court held res judicata bars Plaintiffs’ claims; prior state court judgment precludes them |
| Equitable Estoppel/Laches | Guldi: Was unaware of deed and did not delay unreasonably | Defendants: Plaintiffs delayed action, were silent/inactive as Defendants changed position | Summary judgment denied; factual issues precluded decision on estoppel/laches |
| Adverse Possession/Ratification | Guldi: No hostile claim; Bivona’s occupancy unauthorized | Defendants: Debtor’s long, exclusive, hostile possession supports adverse possession | Summary judgment denied; factual disputes remain |
Key Cases Cited
- New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742 (2001) (sets standard for judicial estoppel)
- Robinson v. Concentra Health Servs., Inc., 781 F.3d 42 (2d Cir. 2015) (judicial estoppel standards in the Second Circuit)
- Homecomings Fin., LLC v. Guldi, 969 N.Y.S.2d 470 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013) (prior litigation concerning same property’s foreclosure)
- In re Guldi, 925 N.Y.S.2d 336 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011) (Guldi’s disbarment, relevant to his role)
- People v. Guldi, 59 N.Y.S.3d 385 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017) (criminal history considered in credibility/privity)
- Estate of Becker v. Murtagh, 968 N.E.2d 433 (N.Y. 2012) (standards for adverse possession under NY law)