A long-running legal feud over a 2003 property transfer has been dismissed
A New York appellate court has closed the door on a long-running real estate dispute involving a disputed property transfer, allegations of fraud, and tangled business relationships. The court's decision, handed down by the Appellate Division, Third Department, confirms that waiting too long to challenge a property deal - no matter how questionable - can make legal claims impossible to pursue.
At the heart of the case is a 1988 agreement between William DiCenzo Sr. and a group of business partners, including Michael Mone, Nicholas Mone, and Courtenay Hall. DiCenzo Sr. sold 75% of his company, Allen Drive Realty Inc., for $900,000, with only $100,000 paid upfront. The rest was to be paid in monthly installments over 30 years.
Things took a turn in 2003. According to court records, the payments stopped, and Mone and Hall created a new entity, Kirby Road Apartments LLC. Without DiCenzo Sr.’s consent, they transferred the assets of Allen Drive to Kirby Road. The deed formalizing the transfer was signed by Mone as president of a company called “Allen Drive Apartments, Inc.” - a name that didn’t exist in official records.
In 2016, DiCenzo Sr., then in his 90s, agreed to a settlement. He accepted a one-time payment and a one-third stake in Kirby Road in exchange for releasing Mone and Hall from any further liability. But in 2019, after DiCenzo’s son - William DiCenzo II - was appointed his guardian, the family went back to court, claiming the 2016 deal was based on fraud and that the original 2003 transfer was void.
They filed two lawsuits. One challenged Mone’s handling of Kirby Road’s finances and sought a court-appointed receiver to take control of the business. As part of that case, the defendants issued a subpoena to Buenos Hill Inc., a non-party, for tax records and corporate meeting minutes to clarify who really owned what. Buenos Hill objected and asked the court to quash the subpoena.
The second lawsuit, filed in 2023, went after Mone, Kirby Road, and Sunmark Credit Union, which held a mortgage on the property. The claim? That the 2003 deed was fraudulent and should be declared void.
On April 24, 2025, the appellate court upheld the lower court’s decision to dismiss the fraud lawsuit. The judges found that although Mone may have acted without authority, that didn’t make the deed a forgery. He signed his own name - something New York courts say does not qualify as forgery, even if done under the name of a fictitious company.
That distinction is important. In New York, a forged deed - meaning one signed with someone else’s name, or without their knowledge - is considered void from the start and can be challenged at any time. But when someone signs their own name, even if they’re misrepresenting their authority, the deed is considered “voidable,” not void. And those types of claims must be brought within six years. Since the property was transferred in 2003, and the lawsuit wasn’t filed until 2023, the fraud claims were time-barred.
The court also declined to label the deed as being obtained under false pretenses. The judges noted that the signature wasn’t hidden or tricked out of anyone; Mone knowingly signed the document, even if he didn’t have the authority to do so.
In the related subpoena dispute, the court sided with the defendants. While tax records are usually protected and harder to access, the court found that Buenos Hill hadn’t met the high bar needed to quash the subpoena outright. Still, the court made clear that any documents must be reviewed privately by the judge before being used, and only for the limited purpose of a pending hearing on whether to appoint a receiver for Kirby Road’s assets.
For mortgage professionals, the case serves as a useful reminder about the long-term consequences of ownership transfers, documentation practices, and the risks that can arise when authority isn’t clearly established. It also underscores the importance of timing. Even serious concerns about a property deal can be shut down if they’re raised too late.
With many transactions today involving complex corporate structures and delayed payment agreements, this decision is a cautionary tale. Authority to sign matters - but timing matters just as much.
