Alliance Funding Co. v. Taboada

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Alliance Funding Co. v. Taboada

39 A.D.3d 784, 832 N.Y.S.2d 814

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedApril 24, 2007

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 39 A.D.3d 784 (Alliance Funding Co. v. Taboada) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Alliance Funding Co. v. Taboada, 39 A.D.3d 784, 832 N.Y.S.2d 814 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant New Jersey Mortgage and Investment Corp. appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Cohalan, J.), dated October 26, 2005, which, after a nonjury trial, determined that the plaintiffs mortgage has priority over its mortgage.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

New York has a “race-notice” recording statutory scheme whereby the mortgage recorded first by a mortgagee without notice of any other mortgages will maintain priority over such other mortgages (see Real Property Law § 291; Roth v Porush, 281 AD2d 612, 614 [2001]; Goldstein v Gold, 106 AD2d 100, 101-102 [1984], affd 66 NY2d 624 [1985]). In applying this principle, the Supreme Court correctly determined that the plaintiffs mortgage recorded on September 13, 1999, has priority over the defendant’s mortgage recorded on February 25, 2000.

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Schmidt, J.R, Santucci, Krausman and Balkin, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant New Jersey Mortgage and Investment Corp. appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Cohalan, J.), dated October 26, 2005, which, after a nonjury trial, determined that the plaintiffs mortgage has priority over its mortgage.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

New York has a “race-notice” recording statutory scheme whereby the mortgage recorded first by a mortgagee without notice of any other mortgages will maintain priority over such other mortgages (see Real Property Law § 291; Roth v Porush, 281 AD2d 612, 614 [2001]; Goldstein v Gold, 106 AD2d 100, 101-102 [1984], affd 66 NY2d 624 [1985]). In applying this principle, the Supreme Court correctly determined that the plaintiffs mortgage recorded on September 13, 1999, has priority over the defendant’s mortgage recorded on February 25, 2000.

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Schmidt, J.R, Santucci, Krausman and Balkin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

39 A.D.3d 784, 832 N.Y.S.2d 814, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alliance-funding-co-v-taboada-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack