You are here: / / “Equitable Subrogation” Doctrine Defined

“Equitable Subrogation” Doctrine Defined

The Second Department explained the concept of “equitable subrogation” re: paying the debt of another:

The doctrine of equitable subrogation “is broad enough to include every instance in which one party pays a debt for which another is primarily answerable and which in equity and good conscience should have been discharged by the latter, so long as the payment was made either under compulsion or for the protection of some interest of the party making the payment, and in discharge of an existing liability” … . Bank of NY v Penalver, 2015 NY Slip Op 01406, 2nd Dept 2-18-15

 

You might also like
The Unjustified Denial of Defense Counsel’s Request to Withdraw a Peremptory Challenge Was, Under the Facts, Subject to a Harmless Error Analysis
DEFENDANT WAS PROPERLY PROHIBITED FROM CROSS-EXAMINING A POLICE OFFICER ABOUT FALSE ARREST AND POLICE BRUTALITY LAWSUITS FILED AGAINST THE OFFICER (SECOND DEPT).
“Common Law Arbitration” Explained/”Common Law Arbitration” Waived by Seeking Relief in a Counterclaim
TERMINATION OF OUT OF WORK SCHOOL DISTRICT EMPLOYEE PURSUANT TO THE CIVIL SERVICE LAW IS NOT ARBITRABLE, PETITION TO STAY ARBITRATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
THE VILLAGE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE INFANT PLAINTIFF ASSUMED THE RISK OF INJURY FROM A TIRE SWING IN THE VILLAGE PLAYGROUND; THE VILLAGE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
Evidence Insufficient to Support Attempted Rape Conviction, Ordering Victim to Take Off Her Clothes, Without More, Was Not Enough
HERE PLAINTIFF CORPORATION, RC, DID NOT EXIST WHEN THE REAL ESTATE CONTRACT WAS ENTERED AND WAS NOT FORMED FOR SEVERAL YEARS UNTIL JUST BEFORE THE INSTANT LITIGATION; BECAUSE DEFENDANT DEALT WITH RC AS A CORPORATION FOR YEARS AND RECEIVED SOME BENEFIT FROM THE CONTRACT, THE DOCTRINE OF “CORPORATION BY ESTOPPEL” PROHIBITED DEFENDANT FROM AVOIDING ITS OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE CONTRACT BY ARGUING A NONEXISTENT CORPORATION CANNOT ENTER A CONTRACT (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE ITS DEFAULT BECAUSE IT WAS NEVER SERVED WITH THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THE ADDRESS ON FILE WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE WAS INCORRECT (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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Criteria for a Valid Warrantless Search of a Home Pursuant to the Emergency... Elements of a Constructive Trust Not Adequately Pled