Roth v. Porush

4 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. Bank of Am., N.A. v. Faracco

    2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 31439 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2010)

    ( King v Pelkofski, 20 NY2d 326; see Surace v Stewart, 58 AD3d 715; Bank One v Mon Leang Mui, 38 AD3d 809; Roth v Porush, 281 AD2d 612; Pawling Sav. Bank v Hunt Props., 225 AD2d 678).

  3. GMAC Mortg. Corp. v. Dominguez

    2009 N.Y. Slip Op. 33386 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2009)

    The beneficiary of equitable subrogation obtains a lien superior to that of an undisclosed mortgage (12 Warren's Weed NY Real Property, ยง128.16). The doctrine does not apply where the mortgagee had knowledge of the intervening lienor (R.C.P.S. Assoc. v Karam Developers, 238 AD2d 492, 493 [2d Dept. 1997]; and see Roth v Porush, 281 A.D.2d 612, 614 [2d Dept 2001]). US Bank presents no evidence that EquiCredit paid the senior encumbrance without knowledge of GMAC's intervening mortgage.

  4. Perla v. Real Prop. Solutions Corp.

    2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 50846 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2008)

    ( Goldstein v Gold, 106 AD2d 100, 101-102 [2d Dept 1984]). (See Alliance Funding Co. v Taboada , 39 AD3d 784 [2d Dept 2007]; Jenkins v Stephenson, 293 AD2d 612, 614 [2d Dept 2002]; Roth v Porush, 281 AD2d 612, 614 [2d Dept 2001]). Less than two months ago, inWashington Mut. Bank, FA v Peak Health Club, Inc. ( 48 AD3d 793, 797-798 [2d Dept 2008]), the court held: