You are here: / / Loan Agreement Constituted a “Building Loan Contract” within Meaning of ...

Loan Agreement Constituted a “Building Loan Contract” within Meaning of Lien Law/Only “Construction Funds” Subject to Subordination Penalty

In a full-fledged opinion by Judge Read, with a concurrence/dissent by Judge Graffeo, the Court of Appeals hashed out the priority of liens, including mechanic’s liens, to be satisfied after the foreclosure on a 10 million dollar construction project in Syracuse.  The Court determined that a loan agreement constituted a “building loan contract” within the meaning of Lien Law section 22, and that only the “construction funds,” as opposed to the total mortgage, were subject to the statutory subordination penalty.  Altshuler Shaham Provident Funds, Ltd v GML Tower, LLC, No 115, CtApp, 6-11-13

 

You might also like
Bear Stearns Complaint Stated a Cause of Action for Indemnification and Should Not Have Been Dismissed
THE SECOND DEPARTMENT HAD REVERSED DEFENDANT’S MURDER CONVICTION, STATING IT WAS REVERSING ON WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE GROUNDS FOR THE SAME REASONS IT WAS REVERSING ON LEGAL SUFFICIENCY GROUNDS; THAT CONSTITUTED AN ERROR OF LAW REVIEWABLE BY THE COURT OF APPEALS; THE COURT OF APPEALS DETERMINED THERE WAS LEGALLY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT CONVICTION; THE MATTER WAS REMITTED FOR PROPER ASSESSMENT OF THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (CT APP).
HERE THE SUPERINTENDENT OF HIGHWAYS WAS NOT “ENGAGED IN HIGHWAY WORK” WHEN HE COLLIDED WITH PLAINTIFF; THEREFORE THE ORDINARY NEGLIGENCE STANDARD, NOT THE HIGHER “RECKLESS” STANDARD FOR HIGHWAY WORKERS IN THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW, APPLIED TO THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT (CT APP).
THE BREACH OF CONTRACT (FIRE INSURANCE POLICY) CAUSE OF ACTION ALLEGED IN THE COMPLAINT DID NOT GIVE NOTICE OF THE CLAIM THE CONTRACT SHOULD BE REFORMED BASED UPON MUTUAL MISTAKE; THEREFORE THE PLAINTIFF SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO CONFORM THE PLEADINGS TO THE PROOF AND THE JURY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO CONSIDER WHETHER THE ENDORSEMENT REQUIRING A SPRINKLER SYSTEM ON THE INSURED PREMISES WAS INCLUDED IN THE POLICY BY MUTUAL MISTAKE (CT APP).
TESTIMONY BY OFFICER WHO WAS PRESENT BUT DID NOT ADMINISTER THE DWI BREATHALYZER TEST DID NOT VIOLATE THE CONFRONTATION CLAUSE.
A JUDGMENT DEBTOR CANNOT BRING AN ACTION IN TORT AGAINST THE CREDITOR OR THE MARSHAL ALLEGING DAMAGES STEMMING FROM THE SEIZURE OF PROPERTY TO BE APPLIED TO THE DEBT; THE JUDGMENT DEBTOR’S REMEDIES ARE CONFINED TO THOSE DESCRIBED IN CPLR 5239 AND 5240 (CT APP).
MONITORING AND RECORDING PHONE CALLS MADE BY PRETRIAL DETAINEES WHO ARE NOTIFIED THE CALLS ARE MONITORED AND RECORDED DOES NOT VIOLATE THE FOURTH AMENDMENT, THE RECORDINGS MAY BE SHARED WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT AND PROSECUTORS WITHOUT A WARRANT (CT APP).
Appeals Not Pursued for a Decade or More Properly Dismissed

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

Petitioner Did Not Demonstrate Diminution in Value Related to Presence of Lead... Conviction for Selling T-Shirts without a Vendor’s License Upheld—Constitutional...