DLJ Mortgage Capital, Inc. v. Kontogiannis

New York Court of Appeals

DLJ Mortgage Capital, Inc. v. Kontogiannis

999 N.E.2d 1189, 22 N.Y.3d 960

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 14, 2013

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 999 N.E.2d 1189 (DLJ Mortgage Capital, Inc. v. Kontogiannis) 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

DLJ Mortgage Capital, Inc. v. Kontogiannis, 999 N.E.2d 1189, 22 N.Y.3d 960 (N.Y. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs, and the certified question answered in the affirmative. As a matter of law, DLJ, as a third-party purchaser of mortgages on the secondary mortgage market, cannot rely on pre-closing documents to establish that a proper conveyance and recording of the underlying property occurred or that title insurance for the property was issued (see Citibank v Chicago Tit. Ins. Co., 214 AD2d 212, 219 [1st Dept 1995], Iv dismissed 87 NY2d 896 [1995]). The Appellate Division correctly determined that any such reliance was unjustifiable.

Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott, Rivera and Abdus-Salaam concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed, with costs, and certified question answered in the affirmative, in a memorandum.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs, and the certified question answered in the affirmative. As a matter of law, DLJ, as a third-party purchaser of mortgages on the secondary mortgage market, cannot rely on pre-closing documents to establish that a proper conveyance and recording of the underlying property occurred or that title insurance for the property was issued (see Citibank v Chicago Tit. Ins. Co., 214 AD2d 212, 219 [1st Dept 1995], Iv dismissed 87 NY2d 896 [1995]). The Appellate Division correctly determined that any such reliance was unjustifiable.

Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott, Rivera and Abdus-Salaam concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed, with costs, and certified question answered in the affirmative, in a memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

999 N.E.2d 1189, 22 N.Y.3d 960, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dlj-mortgage-capital-inc-v-kontogiannis-ny-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack