A new decision of the Appellate Division, Second Department (Gerlitz v Biddle, 2022 NY Slip Op 00851 (2d Dep’t Decided Feb. 9, 2022) addresses the distinction between transactions that are “void” and those that are “voidable” based upon allegations of fraudulent conduct.
I addressed this subject in detail in my post More on the Void/Voidable Dichotomy in Fraud and in First Department Explains Distinction Between Void and Voidable Documents and Corresponding Fraud.
Forgeries Equal Void Transactions
As it relates to fraud, a document that contains a forged signature of the party who appears to have signed the document is simply not valid at all from the inception (the courts use the Latin phase “void ab initio”). In law, such a document is deemed never to have existed legally since the person who is claimed to have signed it and agreed to whatever is stated in it did not actually sign it and never intended to do so.