Dime Savings Bank of New York, F.S.B. v. Pesce

New York Court of Appeals

Dime Savings Bank of New York, F.S.B. v. Pesce

715 N.E.2d 93, 93 N.Y.2d 939, 693 N.Y.S.2d 66, 1999 N.Y. LEXIS 1209

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 3, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 715 N.E.2d 93 (Dime Savings Bank of New York, F.S.B. v. Pesce) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Dime Savings Bank of New York, F.S.B. v. Pesce, 715 N.E.2d 93, 93 N.Y.2d 939, 693 N.Y.S.2d 66, 1999 N.Y. LEXIS 1209 (N.Y. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The judgment appealed from and the order of the Appellate Division brought up for review should be affirmed, with costs.

This action arises out of plaintiff Dime Savings Bank’s foreclosure of a mortgage it held on a “qualified leasehold condominium” unit in the Hudson View Towers, one of only two such condominium complexes authorized in this State pursuant to Real Property Law § 339-e. The distinguishing feature of this form of condominium ownership is that, while the units themselves, together with their common interest, are deemed real property (see, Real Property Law § 339-g) the land on which they stand is owned by the Battery Park City Authority. The Authority leased the property to Hudson pursuant to an 85 year ground lease. Hudson collected ground rent as part of the common charges paid by each condominium unit. The unit owner here defaulted on mortgage payments to Dime Bank, which financed his purchase of the unit, and payments of common charges to Hudson. The Authority argues that its claim for past due rents is entitled to priority over the mortgage. The Appellate Division rejected the Authority’s position, and we agree.

Given the unique nature of the property interests involved, and the comprehensive, integrated contractual obligations undertaken by the various parties, standard principles of landlord-tenant law do not adequately resolve this case. The Appellate Division (217 AD2d 299) looked to the condominium declaration, the ground lease and Real Property Law § 339-z and correctly concluded that the Authority agreed to subordinate its interest in the property to that of first mortgagee of the individual units. Dime issued a mortgage to the unit owner in expectation of the Authority’s junior lien position. To hold otherwise would seriously impair the ability to finance purchases of these units.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Bellacosa, Smith, Levine, Ciparick, Wesley and Rosenblatt concur.

Judgment appealed from and order of the Appellate Division brought up for review affirmed, with costs, in memorandum.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The judgment appealed from and the order of the Appellate Division brought up for review should be affirmed, with costs.

This action arises out of plaintiff Dime Savings Bank’s foreclosure of a mortgage it held on a “qualified leasehold condominium” unit in the Hudson View Towers, one of only two such condominium complexes authorized in this State pursuant to Real Property Law § 339-e. The distinguishing feature of this form of condominium ownership is that, while the units themselves, together with their common interest, are deemed real property (see, Real Property Law § 339-g) the land on which they stand is owned by the Battery Park City Authority. The Authority leased the property to Hudson pursuant to an 85 year ground lease. Hudson collected ground rent as part of the common charges paid by each condominium unit. The unit owner here defaulted on mortgage payments to Dime Bank, which financed his purchase of the unit, and payments of common charges to Hudson. The Authority argues that its claim for past due rents is entitled to priority over the mortgage. The Appellate Division rejected the Authority’s position, and we agree.

Given the unique nature of the property interests involved, and the comprehensive, integrated contractual obligations undertaken by the various parties, standard principles of landlord-tenant law do not adequately resolve this case. The Appellate Division (217 AD2d 299) looked to the condominium declaration, the ground lease and Real Property Law § 339-z and correctly concluded that the Authority agreed to subordinate its interest in the property to that of first mortgagee of the individual units. Dime issued a mortgage to the unit owner in expectation of the Authority’s junior lien position. To hold otherwise would seriously impair the ability to finance purchases of these units.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Bellacosa, Smith, Levine, Ciparick, Wesley and Rosenblatt concur.

Judgment appealed from and order of the Appellate Division brought up for review affirmed, with costs, in memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

715 N.E.2d 93, 93 N.Y.2d 939, 693 N.Y.S.2d 66, 1999 N.Y. LEXIS 1209, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dime-savings-bank-of-new-york-fsb-v-pesce-ny-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack