From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

405 W. 57th St. Owners v. Coronet Properties

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Sep 15, 1994
207 A.D.2d 694 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)

Opinion

September 15, 1994

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Peter Tom, J.).


The wrap-around mortgages at issue, which were executed in connection with the sales of different premises as part of various cooperative conversions, contain identical clauses, inserted at the direction of the Attorney-General's Office, pursuant to duly promulgated regulations, which provide that in the event of the mortgagee's default in payment on the underlying mortgages, the wrap-around mortgages shall be deemed satisfied. Under these circumstances, defendant cannot be permitted to rely on a special provision of each wrap-around mortgage stating that the plaintiff mortgagors' "sole remedy" shall be to advance the funds to pay the underlying mortgage, and receive a credit therefor. To so interpret the wrap-around mortgages, where a contrary intent is expressed in the clause inserted at the direction of the Attorney-General acting under his lawful authority, would be contrary to the dictates of public policy, and would violate the intent and understanding of the parties, as well as pervert the statutory scheme of informed disclosure (Council for Owner Occupied Hous. v. Abrams, 72 N.Y.2d 553, 557).

By its terms, defendant's default must result in the mortgage being deemed satisfied (see, 51 Fifth Ave. Owners Corp. v Coronet Props. Co., 199 A.D.2d 62; Gregory House Owners Corp. v Coronet Props. Co., 207 A.D.2d 695 [decided herewith]). Defendant cannot avail itself of the savings provision which provides that if the mortgagee "becomes current," the wrap-around mortgage may be "reinstated". Defendant has made no tender and taken no steps to cure its default. Absent any contractual provision setting forth a time by which defendant might cure the default, the law must presume a reasonable time therefor. Given the passage of more than three years since the default, the cure period must be presumed to have expired as a matter of law (see, 51 Fifth Ave. Owners Corp. v. Coronet Props. Co., supra).

Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Asch, Rubin and Williams, JJ.


Summaries of

405 W. 57th St. Owners v. Coronet Properties

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Sep 15, 1994
207 A.D.2d 694 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
Case details for

405 W. 57th St. Owners v. Coronet Properties

Case Details

Full title:405 WEST 57TH STREET OWNERS CORP., Respondent, v. CORONET PROPERTIES…

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

Date published: Sep 15, 1994

Citations

207 A.D.2d 694 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
616 N.Y.S.2d 585

Citing Cases

885 W.E. Residents Corp. v. Coronet Props. Co.

Decided June 7, 1995 Appeal from (1st Dept: 207 A.D.2d 694) MOTIONS FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL GRANTED OR…

405 W. 57th St. Owners Corp. v. Coronet Props. Co.

Decided June 7, 1995 Appeal from (1st Dept: 207 A.D.2d 694) MOTIONS FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL GRANTED OR…