You are here: / / Question of Fact About Whether Good Faith Lender, Which Recorded Its Mortgage...

Question of Fact About Whether Good Faith Lender, Which Recorded Its Mortgage First, Had a Duty to Inquire About a Prior Mortgage

The Second Department determined there was a question of fact about the priority of a mortgage held by a good-faith lender for value and recorded first:

“Under New York’s Recording Act (Real Property Law § 291) a mortgage loses its priority to a subsequent mortgage where the subsequent mortgagee is a good-faith lender for value, and records its mortgage first without actual or constructive knowledge of the prior mortgage” … . “[A] mortgagee is under a duty to make an inquiry where it is aware of facts that would lead a reasonable, prudent lender to make inquiries of the circumstances of the transaction at issue” … . Here, the moving defendants demonstrated, prima facie, that they have a first lien with respect to Lot 56 by submitting evidence that they were good faith lenders for value protected by Real Property Law § 291 … . However, in opposition, the plaintiff’s submissions … raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the moving defendants had a duty to inquire about whether the mortgage previously entered into …. was intended to encumber the entirety of [the property].   Wells Fargo NA v Savinetti, 2014 NY Slip Op 02428, 2nd Dept 4-9-14

 

You might also like
PLAINTIFF STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR DEFAMATION PER SE (DEFENDANT ALLEGEDLY STATED PLAINTIFF ENGAGED IN MONEY LAUNDERING); ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED THE ACTION INVOLVED “PUBLIC PETITION AND PARTICIPATION” WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE SLAPP STATUTE, PLAINTIFF DEMONSTRATED THE DEFAMATION ACTION HAD A SUBSTANTIAL BASIS IN LAW; THEREFORE THE SLAPP STATUTE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN APPLIED TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT (SECOND DEPT).
THERE IS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE DRIVER WHO ALLEGEDLY INJURED PLAINTIFF WAS AN EMPLOYEE OR A SUBCONTRACTOR WITH RESPECT TO ONE OF THE THREE DEFENDANTS, THE OTHER TWO DEFENDANTS DEMONSTRATED THE DRIVER WAS NOT AN EMPLOYEE ENTITLING THEM TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT). ​
PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER A DELAY IN DIAGNOSIS AFFECTED THE PROGNOSIS; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
Written Waiver of Conflict by Defendants Precluded Disqualification of Plaintiff’s Counsel
THE ORAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN PLAINTIFF AND HER MOTHER REQUIRING MOTHER TO TRANSFER FUNDS TO THE PLAINTIFF COULD HAVE BEEN COMPLETED WITHIN A YEAR AND THEREFORE DID NOT VIOLATE THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS; THE RELATED BREACH OF CONTRACT AND TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACT CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT). ​
QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE “LAUNCH AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM” ESPINAL EXCEPTION APPLIED TO A CONTRACTOR AND WHETHER DEFENDANTS HAD CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION ALLEGED TO HAVE CAUSED PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH SUPREME COURT CORRECTLY SET ASIDE THE VERDICT AS THE PRODUCT OF SUBSTANTIAL CONFUSION, SUPREME COURT DID NOT HAVE THE POWER TO “REINSTATE” A PRIOR VERDICT THAT HAD NOT BEEN REPORTED TO THE JUDGE.
THE STOP OF THE TAXI IN WHICH DEFENDANT WAS A PASSENGER WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE DEFENDANT HAD COMMITTED A CRIME; BECAUSE DEFENDANT PLED GUILTY TO ALL OFFENSES BASED UPON A PROMISE OF CONCURRENT SENTENCES, ALL CONVICTIONS REVERSED (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

Plaintiff’s Allegation of Inadequate Lighting Was a Sufficient Indication... Waiver of Appeal Invalid