SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER
-------------------------------------------------------------------------){
FRANK BAUCO,
Plaintiff,
- against -
MAURA BURGESS, RICHARD BURGESS,
JEANETTE SERGIO and STEPHEN SERGIO,
Defendants.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------){
-------------------------------------------------------------------------){
ANDREW GAMBARDELLA,
Plaintiff,
- against -
MAURA BURGESS, RICHARD BURGESS,
JEANETTE SERGIO and STEPHEN SERGIO,
Defendants.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------){
LIEBOWITZ, J.
Index# 9199/2007
AND
ENTERED
ON Jr.11''/R 01 20;f
WESTCHESTER
COUNTY CLERK
Index # 9198/2007
N2-2008
TIMOTHY C. !DON/
CO COUNTY CLErtK
UNTY OF W E S T H E S T ~
This matter was referred to this Court for a framed issue hearing to determine
whether certain documents evidencing a personal indebtedness by defendant Maura Burgess
("M.B.") in favor of plaintiffs Frank Bauco and Andrew Gambardella were the product ofa
forgery. M.B. also asks for an award of attorney's fees in view of plaintiffs' egregious behavior
in prosecuting this matter.
,.:'
The framed issue hearing in this matter was held before this Court on March 3,
2008. The evidence presented at the hearing consisted of testimony by a total of five (5)
witnesses called on behalf ofM.B., as well as documentary evidence introduced by her. The
Court also received post-trial submissions from plaintiffs and M.B., and the matter was fully
submitted on April 4, 2008.
Factually, defendant M.B. and her ex-husband Richard Burgess ("R.B"), along
with Jeanette Sergis and Richard Sergis, operated a collision repair shop, Parkway South
Collision Inc. d/b/a S&S Collision. M.B. left the active management of the business entirely to
R.B. At some point, R.B. entered into two agreements, on behalf of the corporation, with Frank
Bauco and Andrew Gambardella, to borrow the sum of $150,000. In due course, R.B. returned
executed and notarized promissory notes and affidavits for confession of judgment which
demonstrated execution of same by M.B. After the loans were defaulted upon, plaintiffs
proceeded against M.B., entered judgment against her and restrained her bank accounts. She
now seeks to void the judgment.
At the hearing held in this matter, the Court heard the testimony of John F.
Breslin, a forensic document examiner, and a retired New York City Police Department
Detective with 33 years of experience as a document examiner. The essence of Mr. Breslin's
testimony was that in his opinion, the signatures of M.B. contained in the promissory notes and
affidavits for confession of judgment were not that ofM.B. This opinion was echoed by
Detective Daniel Benge (a New Rochelle Detective who investigated the case). Ms. Betty
Rivera, the notary who allegedly took M.B.'s signature on the aforementioned documents was
unable to identify M.B. as the person who executed the documents. Co-defendant Steven Sergio
2
testified that he did not sign the documents in question before a notary, and that he did not see
M.B. sign them. Lastly, M.B. testified that she did not sign either the promissory notes or the
affidavits for confession of judgment.
Plaintiffs also argue that even ifthe Court were to conclude that M.B. did not
execute the documents in question, she is nevertheless obligated by same on the theory that she
gave her husband implied authority to bind her in this regard.
A review of the oral testimony and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing
clearly demonstrates that M.B. did not execute the documents in question. Plaintiffs' reliance on
the theory that R.B. was authorized to sign the documents on M.B. 's behalf is misplaced. Here,
the party who executed the promissory notes and the affidavits of confession of judgment was a
woman who appeared before a notary public and held herself out to be M.B. These facts
unequivocally demonstrate a scheme to deceive the notary into believing that M.B. herself was
executing the documents, and not that they were being executed by her husband as her agent.
As a result of the foregoing, this Court concludes that the signatures purported to
be that of Maura Burgess on the promissory notes and affidavits of confession of judgment were
forged. The Court respectfully refers to the issue of any attorney's fees to be awarded Maura
Burgess to the Honorable Joan B. Lefkowitz, J.S.C., the IAS judge assigned to this case.
This constitutes the Decision of this Court.
Dated: White Plains, New York
May 30, 2008
3
~ ? ~
RICHARD B. LIEBOWITZ hi;;
SUPREME COURT JUSTICE
Trivella, Forte and Smith, LLP
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
1311 Mamaroneck Avenue, Suite 170
White Plains, New York 10605
Hyman & Gilbert
Attorneys for Maura Burgess
1843 Palmer A venue
Larchmont, New York 10583
Hon. Joan B. Lefkowitz, J.S.C.
4
