Bank of New York v. Jean Penalver

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bank of New York v. Jean Penalver

125 A.D.3d 795, 1 N.Y.S.3d 835

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

DecidedFebruary 18, 2015

Docket2012-10714

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 125 A.D.3d 795 (Bank of New York v. Jean Penalver) 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

Bank of New York v. Jean Penalver, 125 A.D.3d 795, 1 N.Y.S.3d 835 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant Joshua Nesbitt appeals from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Minardo, J.), entered September 20, 2012, which granted those branches of the plaintiffs motion which were for summary judgment declaring that the plaintiff is equitably subrogated to the rights of a prior mortgagee, has an equitable first mortgage on the subject property in the principal sum of $109,237.57, and has an equitable first lien on the property in the principal sum of $30,179.48, and thereupon made the declaration.

*796 Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The doctrine of equitable subrogation “is broad enough to include every instance in which one party pays a debt for which another is primarily answerable and which in equity and good conscience should have been discharged by the latter, so long as the payment was made either under compulsion or for the protection of some interest of the party making the payment, and in discharge of an existing liability” (Gerseta Corp. v Equitable Trust Co. of N.Y., 241 NY 418, 425-426 [1926]; see Hamlet at Willow Cr. Dev. Co., LLC v Northeast Land Dev. Corp., 64 AD3d 85, 105-106 [2009]).

Here, the documentary evidence submitted by the plaintiff on its motion for summary judgment established that, of the mortgage proceeds it loaned to the defendants Jean Penalver and Joshua Nesbitt in 2007, the sum of $109,237.57 was allocated to satisfy an existing mortgage upon the subject real property (see LaSalle Bank Natl. Assn. v Ally, 39 AD3d 597, 600-601 [2007]; Federal Natl. Mtge. Assn. v Woodbury, 254 AD2d 182 [1998]; Zeidel v Dunne, 215 AD2d 472, 474 [1995]). In opposition, the defendant Joshua Nesbitt failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see generally Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was for summary judgment declaring that the plaintiff has an equitable first mortgage on the property in the principal sum of $109,237.57.

Nesbitt’s remaining contentions are without merit.

Rivera, J.P., Balkin, Duffy and LaSalle, 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 Joshua Nesbitt appeals from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Minardo, J.), entered September 20, 2012, which granted those branches of the plaintiffs motion which were for summary judgment declaring that the plaintiff is equitably subrogated to the rights of a prior mortgagee, has an equitable first mortgage on the subject property in the principal sum of $109,237.57, and has an equitable first lien on the property in the principal sum of $30,179.48, and thereupon made the declaration.

*796 Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The doctrine of equitable subrogation “is broad enough to include every instance in which one party pays a debt for which another is primarily answerable and which in equity and good conscience should have been discharged by the latter, so long as the payment was made either under compulsion or for the protection of some interest of the party making the payment, and in discharge of an existing liability” (Gerseta Corp. v Equitable Trust Co. of N.Y., 241 NY 418, 425-426 [1926]; see Hamlet at Willow Cr. Dev. Co., LLC v Northeast Land Dev. Corp., 64 AD3d 85, 105-106 [2009]).

Here, the documentary evidence submitted by the plaintiff on its motion for summary judgment established that, of the mortgage proceeds it loaned to the defendants Jean Penalver and Joshua Nesbitt in 2007, the sum of $109,237.57 was allocated to satisfy an existing mortgage upon the subject real property (see LaSalle Bank Natl. Assn. v Ally, 39 AD3d 597, 600-601 [2007]; Federal Natl. Mtge. Assn. v Woodbury, 254 AD2d 182 [1998]; Zeidel v Dunne, 215 AD2d 472, 474 [1995]). In opposition, the defendant Joshua Nesbitt failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see generally Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was for summary judgment declaring that the plaintiff has an equitable first mortgage on the property in the principal sum of $109,237.57.

Nesbitt’s remaining contentions are without merit.

Rivera, J.P., Balkin, Duffy and LaSalle, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

125 A.D.3d 795, 1 N.Y.S.3d 835, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bank-of-new-york-v-jean-penalver-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack