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
Criteria for Holding Property Owner Liable for an Assault on the Owner’s Property Succinctly Described
THE PEOPLE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE IMPOUNDMENT OF DEFENDANT’S CAR AND THE INVENTORY SEARCH WERE LAWFUL; SEIZED EVIDENCE SUPPRESSED AND INDICTMENT DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANTS WERE NOT SERVED WITH NOTICE OF THE FORECLOSURE SALE; THEIR MOTION TO VACATE THE FORECLOSURE SALE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF WAS NOT INVOLVED IN CONSTRUCTION WORK WHEN HE FELL, LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT). ​
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANT WAS NOT CLOSE ENOUGH TO ALLOW AN UNJUST ENRICHMENT ACTION, DEFENDANT’S ACTIONS COULD NOT HAVE CAUSED PLAINTIFF’S RELIANCE OR INDUCEMENT (SECOND DEPT
PETITIONER’S NOTICE OF CLAIM DEMONSTRATED HE HAD SUFFICIENT INFORMATION TO FORMULATE A COMPLAINT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE; HIS REQUEST FOR PRE-JOINDER DISCOVERY AND PRESERVATION OF THE ACCIDENT SCENE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​
THE JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN TOLD NOT TO CONSIDER THE LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE IF THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE WAS PROVEN FOR THE HIGHER OFFENSE, THE JURY ALSO SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED ON THE ‘TEMPORARY INNOCENT POSSESSION OF A WEAPON’ DEFENSE, JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).
CONCLUSORY AND SPECULATIVE ALLEGATIONS WILL NOT SUPPORT PIERCING THE CORPORATE VEIL (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