From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Home Savings of America v. Weingrad

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 19, 1998
248 A.D.2d 253 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Opinion

March 19, 1998

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Huff, J.).


We reject appellants' contention that triable issues of fact have been raised with respect to their claim that the subordinate mortgage held by defendant Manufacturers and Traders Trust Company has been satisfied. While the record is unclear as to Key Bank's interest in the mortgage and as to that bank's issuance of a Discharge of Mortgage prior to the assignment of the mortgage to Manufacturers, it is clear that appellants have never alleged that said mortgage was paid, and have not submitted actual evidence of payment such as canceled checks. The record establishes that the subject subordinate mortgage was held by Goldome, then by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation as Goldome's receiver, and finally by Manufacturers by virtue of an assignment dated February 25, 1993, and recorded on March 24, 1994. The purported Discharge of Mortgage was never recorded and thus did not discharge the mortgage on record. Moreover, appellants' position that the mortgage was satisfied is further undermined by their entry into a Modification Agreement concerning said mortgage pursuant to which they continued to make payments for approximately two years, subsequent to the alleged satisfaction. Appellants' claim that the subordinate mortgage is unenforceable because no mortgage recording tax was paid when the Modification Agreement was recorded is not properly before this Court for review, and in any event, is without merit. Since there is no evidence that any new monies were advanced at the Modification closing, and the Modification Agreement did nothing more than alter the interest and payment terms of the mortgage, the recording of the Modification Agreement did not constitute a taxable event, and thus, no mortgage tax was due at that time ( see, Tax Law § 255; Matter of Rednow Realty Corp. v. Tully, 72 A.D.2d 621, 622, lv denied 48 N.Y.2d 610).

We have considered appellants' remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.

Concur — Lerner, P. J., Sullivan, Rosenberger, Nardelli and Andrias, JJ.


Summaries of

Home Savings of America v. Weingrad

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 19, 1998
248 A.D.2d 253 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
Case details for

Home Savings of America v. Weingrad

Case Details

Full title:HOME SAVINGS OF AMERICA, FSB, as Successor by Merger to BOWERY SAVINGS…

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

Date published: Mar 19, 1998

Citations

248 A.D.2d 253 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
670 N.Y.S.2d 426

Citing Cases

Sudit v. Roth

Roth also contends that the foreclosure action is barred by Tax Law § 258 (requiring that no mortgage may be…

Sudit v. Creditor

Roth also contends that the foreclosure action is barred by Tax Law § 258 (requiring that no mortgage may be…