Great Eastern Bank v. Chang

227 A.D.2d 589, 643 N.Y.S.2d 203, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6073
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMay 28, 1996
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 227 A.D.2d 589 (Great Eastern Bank v. Chang) 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
Great Eastern Bank v. Chang, 227 A.D.2d 589, 643 N.Y.S.2d 203, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6073 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Opinion

In a mortgage foreclosure action, the defendant Janet Chang appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lonschein, J.), dated January 12, 1995, which granted the plaintiffs motion, inter alia, for partial summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Steven Chang and his brother Hsu Chang acquired a residential condominium unit, and a mortgage on the property was held by Long Island Savings Bank. Upon his death, Hsu’s wife, the appellant, succeeded to his interest in the unit and thereby became an owner of the unit with Steven as tenants in common. Thereafter, without the knowledge or consent of the appellant, Steven obtained a mortgage on the property from the plaintiff, Great Eastern Bank. After Steven defaulted on the mortgage payments, the plaintiff brought this action to foreclose on the mortgage lien given by Steven and also on the equitable lien created when it satisfied the Long Island Savings Bank mortgage.

Where, as here, the funds of a mortgagee are used to discharge a prior lien upon the property of another, the doctrine of equitable subrogation applies to prevent unjust enrichment by subrogating the mortgagee to the position of the senior lienholder (see, King v Pelkofski, 20 NY2d 326, 333; Wagner v Maenza, 223 AD2d 640; Zeidel v Dunne, 215 AD2d 472; Cohn v Rothman-Goodman Mgt. Corp., 155 AD2d 579, 580). The Supreme Court properly concluded that the mortgage to Long Island Savings Bank created a lien against the appellant’s interest and Steven’s interest in the condominium. Accordingly, the appellant and Steven were obligated to contribute equally to the repayment of the equitable lien.

[590]*590The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. O’Brien, J. P., Santucci, Joy and Florio, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Carver Fed. Sav. Bank v. Baptiste
2020 NY Slip Op 1043 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Dalfin
2019 NY Slip Op 1255 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
Bank of N.Y. v. Penalver
2018 NY Slip Op 4521 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Citimortgage, Inc. v. Chouen
2017 NY Slip Op 7427 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Cashel v. Cashel
94 A.D.3d 684 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Surace v. Stewart
58 A.D.3d 715 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Bermuda Trust Co. v. Ameropan Oil Corp.
266 A.D.2d 251 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
Coronet Capital Co. v. Spodek
265 A.D.2d 292 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
Federal National Mortgage Ass'n v. Woodbury
254 A.D.2d 182 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
227 A.D.2d 589, 643 N.Y.S.2d 203, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6073, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/great-eastern-bank-v-chang-nyappdiv-1996.