V & D Realty USA Corp. v. Mitso Group, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

V & D Realty USA Corp. v. Mitso Group, Inc.

240 A.D.2d 562, 659 N.Y.S.2d 985, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6889

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

DecidedJune 16, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 240 A.D.2d 562 (V & D Realty USA Corp. v. Mitso Group, Inc.) 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

V & D Realty USA Corp. v. Mitso Group, Inc., 240 A.D.2d 562, 659 N.Y.S.2d 985, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6889 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to foreclose a mortgage on real property, the defendants R.G. Capital Corporation, Nor star Bank, Fleet National Bank, and Sunrise Charter Management Corp. appeal from so much of an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Golden, J.), dated February 13, 1996, as granted the plaintiff’s cross motion for partial summary judgment dismissing the appellants’ affirmative defenses and counterclaims "as they relate to the question of priority” of various mortgages.

Ordered that the order and judgment is reversed insofar as appealed from, with costs, and the cross motion for partial summary judgment is denied.

An error in indexing a mortgage prevents a record of that instrument from constituting constructive notice "as to the property in any block not duly designated” at the time the mortgage is filed for the period that the error remains uncorrected (County Law § 919 [1] [j]; see, Baccari v De Santi, 70 AD2d 198, 202; Federal Natl. Mtge. Assn. v Levine-Rodriguez, 153 Misc 2d 8). Under the circumstances, material questions of fact exist as to whether the prior mortgage held by the plaintiff was properly indexed as against the subject parcel and whether the appellants were thereby properly put on constructive notice of the mortgage.

[563]*563The appellants’ remaining contentions are without merit. Copertino, J. P., Sullivan, Altman and Florio, 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 on real property, the defendants R.G. Capital Corporation, Nor star Bank, Fleet National Bank, and Sunrise Charter Management Corp. appeal from so much of an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Golden, J.), dated February 13, 1996, as granted the plaintiff’s cross motion for partial summary judgment dismissing the appellants’ affirmative defenses and counterclaims "as they relate to the question of priority” of various mortgages.

Ordered that the order and judgment is reversed insofar as appealed from, with costs, and the cross motion for partial summary judgment is denied.

An error in indexing a mortgage prevents a record of that instrument from constituting constructive notice "as to the property in any block not duly designated” at the time the mortgage is filed for the period that the error remains uncorrected (County Law § 919 [1] [j]; see, Baccari v De Santi, 70 AD2d 198, 202; Federal Natl. Mtge. Assn. v Levine-Rodriguez, 153 Misc 2d 8). Under the circumstances, material questions of fact exist as to whether the prior mortgage held by the plaintiff was properly indexed as against the subject parcel and whether the appellants were thereby properly put on constructive notice of the mortgage.

[563]*563The appellants’ remaining contentions are without merit. Copertino, J. P., Sullivan, Altman and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

240 A.D.2d 562, 659 N.Y.S.2d 985, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6889, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/v-d-realty-usa-corp-v-mitso-group-inc-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack