Roth v. Porush

2 Citing cases

  1. One v. Bank Minnesota

    38 A.D.3d 809 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)   Cited 17 times

    The doctrine of equitable subrogation applies "where the funds of a mortgagee are used to satisfy the lien of an existing, known incumbrance when, unbeknown to the mortgagee, another lien on the property exists which is senior to his but junior to the one satisfied with his funds" ( King v Pelkofski, 20 NY2d 326, 333-334 [1967]). "In order to avoid the unjust enrichment of the intervening, unknown lienor, the mortgagee is entitled to be subrogated to the rights of the senior incumbrance" ( id.; see Roth v Porush, 281 AD2d 612, 614; Pawling Sav. Bank v Hunt Props., 225 AD2d 678, 680). Here, based on extensive documentary proof demonstrating that Mui drew a $76,892.

  2. Novastar Mortgage, Inc. v. Mendoza

    26 A.D.3d 479 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)   Cited 45 times

    The statute further provides that a person whose conveyance is recorded after the filing of a notice of pendency is bound by all proceedings taken in the action after such filing to the same extent as if he or she were a party ( see CPLR 6501; Green Point Sav. Bank v. St. Hilaire, supra; American Auto. Ins. Co. of St. Louis v. Sansone, 206 AD2d 445; Goldstein v. Gold, supra). Thus, in order to cut off an unrecorded prior lien such as a mortgage, "the purchaser must have no knowledge of the outstanding lien and win the race to the recording office" ( Goldstein v. Gold, supra at 101-102; see Matter of Jenkins v. Stephenson, 293 AD2d 612; Roth v. Porush, 281 AD2d 612). Here, the record demonstrates that the deed conveying a one-half interest in the subject premises to the nonparty Francisco Mendoza was recorded approximately one month after the plaintiff commenced this foreclosure action and filed a notice of pendency.