You are here: / / Unrecorded Purchase Money Mortgage Did Not Have Priority Over Mortgage...

Unrecorded Purchase Money Mortgage Did Not Have Priority Over Mortgage Recorded by Good-Faith Lender for Value

The Second Department determined that plaintiff’s complaint failed to state a cause of action concerning whether plaintiff’s purchase money mortgage had priority over the recorded mortgage held by defendant bank.  Plaintiff’s mortgage was not recorded:

Pursuant to “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” … . Further, the plaintiff’s purchase money mortgage “is as much subject to the Recording Act as any other” … .

The amended complaint failed to allege that [defendants] had constructive or actual notice of the plaintiff’s purchase money mortgage, that either made any representation to the plaintiff, or otherwise acted in bad faith. Thus, the plaintiff may only establish that the purchase money mortgage had priority over [defendant’s] mortgage on the basis that it was recorded first. However, the amended complaint averred that the purchase money mortgage was not recorded, and further stated that [defendant] holds a first Mortgage to the property.” Carrion v 162 Pulaski LLC, 2014 NY Slip Op 03470, 2nd Dept 5-14-14

 

You might also like
CAUSE OF ACTION BASED UPON A THEORY NOT ALLEGED IN THE NOTICE OF CLAIM PROPERLY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
Doctrine of Primary Assumption of the Risk Does Not Apply to Game of “Manhunt” Played After Midnight on School Property
Criteria for Setting Aside a Verdict As a Matter of Law and As Against the Weight of the Evidence Described
WHEN DETERMINING THE VALUE OF A PARTNERSHIP SHARE UPON DISSOLUTION, A MINORITY DISCOUNT CAN PROPERLY BE APPLIED TO A PARTNER WHO WRONGFULLY DISSOLVED THE PARTNERSHIP AND WHO DID NOT EXERCISE CONTROL OVER THE PARTNERSHIP AS A GOING CONCERN.
PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT WAS PROPERLY SERVED OR EVEN NOTIFIED OF THE FORECLOSURE ACTION; THE COURT NEVER HAD JURISDICTION OVER DEFENDANT AND THE MOTION TO EXTEND THE TIME TO SERVE HER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​
THE CUSTODY ARRANGEMENTS SET FORTH IN A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN MODIFIED IN THE ABSENCE OF A HEARING AND FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE RELIED ON INADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE UNTESTED BY THE PARTIES (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF NEED NOT SHOW BOTH A JUSTIFIABLE EXCUSE AND A MERITORIOUS CAUSE OF ACTION TO AVOID DISMISSAL FOR NEGLECT TO PROCEED.
PLAINTIFF’S DEPOSITION TESTIMONY INDICATED HIS FALL FROM AN A-FRAME LADDER WAS NOT CAUSED BY A DEFECT IN THE LADDER, PLAINTIFF LOST HIS BALANCE WHILE HOLDING A PIECE OF SHEETROCK, LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED (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

Injunction Enforcing Restrictive Covenant Properly Granted Despite Substantial... Codefendant’s Statement Was Admissible—the Fact that the Statement...