From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Dollar Dry Dock Savings Bank v. Hudson Street Development Associates

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Aug 1, 1991
175 A.D.2d 688 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

Opinion

August 1, 1991

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Irma Santaella, J.).


Plaintiff-respondent Dollar Dry Dock moved for summary judgment in this mortgage foreclosure action with respect to a first and a second mortgage it held on the same premises.

Defendant-appellant Target Builders, Inc. commenced a mechanic's lien foreclosure action against the premises, which was consolidated for trial with the mortgage foreclosure action.

The Motion Court granted the plaintiff-mortgagee's motion for summary judgment of foreclosure and held that, because the two mortgages were filed prior to the filing of the mechanic's liens, the mechanic's liens were subordinate. The Motion Court failed to consider whether Lien Law § 22 should apply to subordinate the bank's mortgages to the mechanic's lien. Issues of fact include whether the consensual foreclosure stipulation agreed upon by defendant-borrowers materially modified the original building loan agreement, and whether the defendant-subcontractors could qualify as a third party within the meaning of Lien Law § 22.

On this record summary judgment was clearly inappropriate. Discovery should proceed with respect to the affirmative defenses and counterclaims of all subcontractors.

Concur — Murphy, P.J., Carro, Kupferman, Asch and Rubin, JJ.


Summaries of

Dollar Dry Dock Savings Bank v. Hudson Street Development Associates

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Aug 1, 1991
175 A.D.2d 688 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
Case details for

Dollar Dry Dock Savings Bank v. Hudson Street Development Associates

Case Details

Full title:DOLLAR DRY DOCK SAVINGS BANK, Respondent, v. HUDSON STREET DEVELOPMENT…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Aug 1, 1991

Citations

175 A.D.2d 688 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
572 N.Y.S.2d 908

Citing Cases

S & T Bank v. Top Capital of N.Y. Brockport, LLC

The BLA specifically provides that the BLA, mortgage and note were "made for the sole protection of [Top…

Kim v. Arheesu Rest., Inc.

" Here, this Court does not find that the defendants' alleged threat to go out of business, which they are…