Scott v. Doyle

4 Citing cases

  1. Broadway Equity Holdings v. 152 Broadway Haverstraw NY LLC (In re Broadway Equity Holdings)

    617 B.R. 777 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2020)   Cited 1 times

    Moreover, neither in its Post-Trial Memorandum nor its Memorandum of Law in Reply to Plaintiff's Post Trial Submission does 152 Broadway cite any authority for the proposition that the mortgage should be deemed void and unenforceable as to it if not properly notarized, and the applicable law as applied to these facts is to the contrary. That an acknowledgment or notarization may have been improperly taken -- or even not taken at all -- is insufficient to set aside a conveyance of land or affect its validity as to the grantor . Strough v. Wilder, 119 N.Y. 530, 535, 23 N.E. 1057 (1890) ; Son Fong Lum v. Antonelli, 102 A.D.2d 258, 262, 476 N.Y.S.2d 921 (2d Dep't 1984), aff'd 64 N.Y.2d 1158, 490 N.Y.S.2d 733, 480 N.E.2d 347 (1985) ; Matter of Offerman, 172 A.D.2d 838, 569 N.Y.S.2d 204 (2d Dep't 1991) ; DRT Constr. Co. v. BH Assocs., 269 A.D.2d 783, 783-84, 702 N.Y.S.2d 738 (4th Dep't 2001) ; Scott v. Doyle, 12 Misc.3d 1163(A), 2006 WL 1493110 (Sup. Ct. Qns. Cty. 2006) ; 1 Bergman on New York Mortgage Foreclosures § 1.20 (2020). A proven, unrecorded mortgage is still enforceable against the owner/mortgagor.

  2. Cashel v. Cashel

    94 A.D.3d 684 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)   Cited 16 times

    Thus, regardless of the sufficiency of Fremont's opposition papers, the Supreme Court should have denied that branch of Thomas's motion which was for summary judgment dismissing Fremont's third counterclaim in Action No. 2 ( see generally Winegrad v. New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 N.Y.2d 851, 853, 487 N.Y.S.2d 316, 476 N.E.2d 642). Finally, while Fremont asks this Court to grant that branch of its cross motion which was for summary judgment on its third counterclaim in Action No. 2, it would be premature to grant that branch of the cross motion before the resolution of the causes of action seeking to declare that the deed is null and void and that the Fremont mortgage is cancelled ( see Scott v. Doyle, 12 Misc.3d 1163[A], 2006 N.Y. Slip Op. 51012[U], 2006 WL 1493110 [2006] ).

  3. JPMorgan Chase Bank, Nat'l Ass'n v. Kalpakis

    2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 31093 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2013)

    . Wherefore, the Court finds that plaintiff's cross-motion for an equitable lien against the Premises is premature before the resolution of the claims seeking to declare that the Deed is null and void and that the Mortgage is cancelled (see Cashel v Cashel, 94 AD3d 684, supra; Williams v Mentore, 2012 NY Slip Op 31965[U] [Sup Ct, Queens County]; Scott v Doyle, 12 Misc 3d 1163[A] [Sup Ct, Queens County 2006]). Based upon the foregoing, that branch of plaintiff's cross-motion for partial summary judgment is DENIED, without prejudice and with leave to renew in the event plaintiff's lien against the Premises is found to be void and is cancelled of record.

  4. Williams v. Mentore

    2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 31965 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2012)   Cited 1 times

    With respect to that branch of the motion by defendant Wells Fargo which seeks, in effect, conditional summary judgment on its counterclaim for a declaration of entitlement to equitable subrogation, a conditional declaration is appropriate only in those instances where the interests of justice and judicial economy are served by affording the parties with the earliest possible determination as to the extent a party may be expected to be reimbursed (see McCabe v Queensboro Farm Products, Inc., 22 NY2d 204 [1968]; Lowe v Dollar Tree Stores, Inc., 40 AD3d 264 [2007]). In this case, a declaration that defendant Wells Fargo is entitled to equitable subrogation is premature given that the dispute concerning whether plaintiff has any ownership interest in the premises has not yet been resolved (see Bernard-Cadet v Lee, [Supreme Court, Queens County, Index No. 8807/2006, order dated February 19, 2008, Satterfield, J.]; Scott v Doyle, 12 Misc 3d 1163[A] [2006]; see also Cain v Bethea, 2007 WL 2859681, 2007 US Dist LEXIS 75824 [ED NY, August 17, 2007], adopted in part and rejected in part on other grounds, 2007 WL 2846914, 2007 US Dist LEXIS 71585 [ED NY, September 26, 2007]).