You are here: / / Equitable Subrogation in the Context of Funds from One Mortgage Loan Used...

Equitable Subrogation in the Context of Funds from One Mortgage Loan Used to Pay Off Another Explained

The Second Department explained the doctrine of equitable subrogation. Plaintiff had given two valid mortgages to one bank, and another bank subsequently used a portion of the proceeds of its loan to satisfy those mortgages:

Under the doctrine of equitable subrogation, where the “property of one person is used in discharging an obligation owed by another or a lien upon the property of another, under such circumstances that the other would be unjustly enriched by the retention of the benefit thus conferred, the former is entitled to be subrogated to the position of the obligee or lien-holder” … . Harris v Thompson, 2014 NY Slip Op 03487, 2nd Dept 5-14-14

 

You might also like
Criteria for Avoiding Dismissal After Failure to Comply with 90-Day Notice to Serve and File Note of Issue Explained
DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE WHEN THE AREA WHERE PLAINTIFF ALLEGEDLY SLIPPED AND FELL WAS LAST INSPECTED OR CLEANED; SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, GRANTED DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON A GROUND NOT RAISED BY THE PARTIES, I.E., FINDING THE DEFECT TRIVIAL (SECOND DEPT).
COMPLAINT STATED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR CONVERSION AND TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH A CONTRACT (SECOND DEPT).
TOWN SHOULD HAVE BEEN HELD IN CONTEMPT FOR FAILURE TO BUILD A FENCE IN ACCORDANCE WITH A STIPULATION (SECOND DEPT).
OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES OF DEFENDANT CORPORATION, ALTHOUGH NON-SIGNATORIES, CAN ENFORCE THE ARBITRATION PROVISION OF THE CONTRACT BETWEEN PLAINTIFF AND THE CORPORATION 2ND DEPT.
FAILURE TO TIMELY MAIL THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT AFTER SERVICE AT DEFENDANT’S BUSINESS AS REQUIRED BY CPLR 308 (2) IS A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT WHICH IS NOT CURED BY LATE MAILING (SECOND DEPT).
MOTHER DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO BRING AN ACTION TO VACATE THE ADOPTION OF HER CHILD BY HER FORMER HUSBAND PURSUANT TO THE INDIAN CHILD WELFARE ACT (ICWA) BECAUSE THE ACT ONLY APPLIES TO CHILDREN REMOVED FROM A PARENT’S CUSTODY (SECOND DEPT).
THE BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304; THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (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

City Administrative Code Provision Requiring a Building Owner to Maintain and... Defendants Who Struck Plaintiff’s Vehicle When Plaintiff Pulled Out of...