You are here: / / Deed Was Not a “Deed in Lieu of Foreclosure;” Deed Therefore...
,

Deed Was Not a “Deed in Lieu of Foreclosure;” Deed Therefore Did Not Transfer Title; Mortgagor’s Interest Can Be Extinguished Only by Foreclosure

The First Department determined a deed constituted a mortgage pursuant to Real Property Law 320, and was not a “deed in lieu of foreclosure.”  Therefore the deed recorded by the defendants did not transfer ownership to them and defendants must foreclose on the mortgage to extinguish the mortgagor’s interest:

Real Property Law § 320 codifies the well-settled common law principle “that the giving of a deed to secure a debt, in whatever form and however structured, creates nothing more than a mortgage” … . The statute does not require a conclusive showing that the transfer was intended as security; rather, it is sufficient that the conveyance appears to be intended only as “a security in the nature of a mortgage” … .

Therefore, as the motion court properly found, “The holder of a deed given as security must proceed in the same manner as any other mortgagee — by foreclosure and sale — to extinguish the mortgagor’s interest” … . This conclusion holds true because the mortgagor has the right of redemption, and that right cannot be waived or abandoned by any stipulation of the parties, even if the waiver is embodied in the mortgage … . Patmos Fifth Real Estate Inc v Mazl Bldg LLC, 2015 NY Slip OP 00278, 1st Dept 1-8-15

 

You might also like
International Bank With a Branch in New York Was Required to Comply with an Information Subpoena—“Separate Entity Rule” Which Prevents New York Courts from Enforcing Restraining Notices and Turnover Orders Directed to Branches of Foreign Banks Located Outside New York, Does Not Prevent New York Courts from Directing the New York Branch of a Foreign Bank to Comply with an Information Subpoena, Even though the Information Sought Relates to Foreign Branches–The Information Sought Is Available Through Electronic Searches Made by the New York Branch of the Bank
Once an Amended Complaint is Served the Action Must Proceed As if the Original Complaint Never Existed—A Summary Judgment Motion Based Upon an Affirmative Defense Asserted for the First Time in the Answer to the Amended Complaint Was Properly Brought, Even Though a Prior Summary Judgment Motion on the Same Ground Had Been Denied/Medical Billing Software, i.e., Intellectual Property, Is “Personal Property” Covered by General Obligations Law 5-903—The Automatic Renewal Provision of the Medical Billing Contract Was Therefore Void
DEFENDANT DID NOT UNDERSTAND HE HAD A RIGHT TO AN ATTORNEY AT THE TIME HIS STATEMENTS WERE MADE EVEN IF HE COULD NOT AFFORD ONE, BOTH STATEMENTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (FIRST DEPT).
ALTHOUGH MOST OF THE CAUSES OF ACTION STEMMING FROM THE PURCHASE OF RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES WERE TIME-BARRED, A LIMITED BACKSTOP GUARANTY CAUSE OF ACTION AND A FAILURE TO NOTIFY CAUSE OF ACTION WERE REINSTATED.
PLAINTIFF PROPERLY AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1) ACTION, HEAVY TRANSFORMER SHIFTED DOWNWARD STRIKING PLAINTIFF, NO SAFETY DEVICES PROVIDED (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF WAS STRUCK BY A NEW JERSEY TRANSIT CORP (NJT) BUS IN NEW YORK; NJT IS AN ARM OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY AND THE SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY DOCTRINE APPLIES; HOWEVER, UNDER NEW JERSEY LAW PLANTIFF CANNOT SUE IN NEW JERSEY BECAUSE THE CAUSE OF ACTION DID NOT ARISE THERE; APPLYING THE FORUM NON CONVENIENS DOCTRINE AS AN ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK, PLAINTIFF’S NEW YORK LAWSUIT WAS ALLOWED TO GO FORWARD (FIRST DEPT).
THE ISSUE WHETHER THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENT THAT OBJECTIONS TO CHILD SUPPORT ORDERS BE RULED ON WITHIN 15 DAYS WAS CONSIDERED ON APPEAL AS AN EXCEPTION TO THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE; THE 15-DAY RULE IS MANDATORY AND MUST BE ENFORCED; THE MOTHER WAS ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY’S FEES UNDER THE EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT BECAUSE HER ACTION WAS THE CATALYST FOR THIS DECISION (FIRST DEPT).
THE DRIVER BEING VISIBLY NERVOUS, COUPLED WITH THE VEHICLE HAVING OUT-OF-STATE PLATES AND BEING IN A HIGH CRIME AREA, DID NOT PROVIDE A FOUNDED SUSPICION OF CRIMINALITY; THEREFORE THE POLICE OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN ASKING WHETHER THERE WERE ANY WEAPONS IN THE CAR, A LEVEL TWO INQUIRY (FIRST 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

Restrictive Covenants in Homeowners’ Association’s Declaration Do... Proof Insufficient to Demonstrate Will Drafted and Signed a Few Days Before...