You are here: / / Erroneous Discharge of Mortgage Can Be Set Aside Where No Detrimental ...
,

Erroneous Discharge of Mortgage Can Be Set Aside Where No Detrimental Reliance

The Second Department explained: “ ‘ A mortgagee may have an erroneous discharge of mortgage, without concomitant satisfaction of the underlying mortgage debt, set aside, and have the mortgage reinstated where there has not been detrimental reliance on the erroneous recording’ … .Only bona fide purchasers and lenders for value are entitled to protection from an erroneous discharge of a mortgage based upon their detrimental reliance thereon.”  Beltway Capital, LLC v Soleil,et al, 2011-02773, Index no 22244/07, Second Dept. 3-6-13

 

You might also like
PLAINTIFF FAILED TO SHOW UP FOR THE SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION AND A DEFAULT JUDGMENT WAS GRANTED; IN MOVING TO VACATE THE DEFAULT, PLAINTIFF DID NOT PRESENT SUFFICIENT PROOF OF LAW OFFICE FAILURE AND DID NOT EXPLAIN ITS DELAY IN SEEKING TO VACATE THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).
FORECLOSURE ACTION ABANDONED, BANK FAILED TO INITIATE DEFAULT JUDGMENT PROCEEDINGS WITHIN ONE YEAR (SECOND DEPT).
ALTERNATE JUROR’S PARTICIPATION IN DELIBERATIONS REQUIRED A NEW TRIAL (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF MOVED FOR AN ORDER OF REFERENCE WITHIN ONE YEAR OF DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION; EVEN THOUGH THE MOTION WAS WITHDRAWN, THE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS ABANDONED (SECOND DEPT).
LANDSCAPER AND ITS INSURER STRICTLY LIABLE FOR OIL DISCHARGE ON PLAINTIFFS’ PROPERTY; OIL LINE SEVERED DURING SPRINKLER REPAIR.
PLAINTIFF IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT DEMONSTRATE “GOOD CAUSE” FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS, BUT DID DEMONSTRATE ENTITLEMENT TO AN EXTENSION IN THE “INTEREST OF JUSTICE” (SECOND DEPT).
Overriding Village Legislative Cap on Number of Taxicab Licenses Not a Proper Subject of Mandamus Action—Applicability of Mandamus Explained
IN A HYBRID ACTION SEEKING AN ANNULMENT PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 78 AND A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT (AND DAMAGES), THE BURDENS TO DEMONSTRATE STANDING ARE DIFFERENT; IN AN ARTICLE 78 THE PETITIONER MUST AFFIRMATIVELY DEMONSTRATE STANDING; AND IN A DECLARTORY-JUDGMENT/DAMAGES ACTION, THE RESPONDENT (DEFENDANT) MUST DEMONSTRATE PETITIONER DOES NOT HAVE STANDING AS A MATTER OF LAW TO WARRANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Failure to Hold a Hearing on Mother’s Petition for Custody and Failure to... Herniated Disc not “Serious Injury”—Insufficient Proof of Physical...