Vitale v. Pinto
| Decision Date | 24 March 1986 |
| Citation | 118 A.D.2d 774,500 N.Y.S.2d 283 |
| Parties | Barbara VITALE, Respondent, v. Salvatore PINTO, et al., Defendants; Lloyd Capital Corp., Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Carol Lilienfeld, New York City, for appellant.
Robert M. Salzman, Brooklyn, for respondent.
Before GIBBONS, J.P., and BROWN, LAWRENCE and KOOPER, JJ.
In an action for a judgment declaring rights under a mortgage and to compel delivery of title to property, the defendant Lloyd Capital Corp. appeals from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bianchi, J.), entered January 31, 1985, as declared the mortgage null and void, and failed to conform to the memorandum decision dismissing the plaintiff's fourth cause of action.
Judgment modified, by (1) deleting the first decretal paragraph and substituting therefor a provision declaring the mortgagee's rights under the mortgage recorded on February 13, 1981, Liber 1218, Page 433, subordinate to the rights of the plaintiff under the option to purchase to the extent of $23,825, (2) adding a fifth decretal paragraph dismissing the plaintiff's fourth cause of action pursuant to the decision of the Supreme Court, and (3) adding a sixth decretal paragraph severing the defendant Lloyd Capital Corp's. claim. As so modified, judgment affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs to appellant, and matter remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for further proceedings consistent herewith.
The plaintiff leased the premises at 1697 Schenectady Avenue from its owner, Salvatore Pinto, for a six-year period commencing November 1976. The lease included an option to purchase the property free of all encumbrances, although the owner retained the right to mortgage the property for up to $15,000 during the term of the lease; for this option the plaintiff paid $4,000. The plaintiff did not record the lease.
In January 1981, Pinto, along with the defendant Lucy Ferrare, executed a blanket mortgage to mortgagee Lloyd Capital Corp. with respect to both the Schenectady Avenue property and a piece of property owned by Ferrare, to secure a loan of $38,825; the mortgage was recorded in February 1981. The mortgagee was aware that the Schenectady Avenue property was tenant occupied but was told by the owner, Pinto, that the plaintiff was a month-to-month tenant with no written lease.
In August 1982 the plaintiff attempted to exercise her option to purchase, but was unsuccessful. She then brought the instant action against Pinto seeking specific performance of the option and conveyance of the property free of all encumbrances and against the mortgagee for a declaration that the mortgage was void as it affected the Schenectady Avenue property.
The plaintiff was granted summary judgment as to Pinto, who was ordered to convey the property free of all encumbrances except the mortgage in question. After trial, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mortg. Elec. Registration Sys., Inc. v. Pagan
...property, Deutsche Bank “is guilty of a degree of negligence fatal to its claim that it is a bona fide purchaser” (Vitale v. Pinto, 118 A.D.2d 774, 776, 500 N.Y.S.2d 283; see Maiorano v. Garson, 65 A.D.3d at 1303, 886 N.Y.S.2d 190; cf. Lucas v. J & W Realty & Constr. Mgt., Inc., 97 A.D.3d a......
-
Cooper v. Pullar, 237620.
...purchaser. (see, Williamson v. Brown, 15 N.Y. 354 (1857), Booth v. Ameriquest Mortgage Co., 63 AD3d 769 [2d Dept.2009], Vitale v. Pinto, 118 A.D.2d 774 [2d Dept.1986] ). Plaintiff's ounsel argues that the Lease states that the Landlord will not obtain further financing or further encumber t......
-
In re Rodriguez
...in open and notorious possession of the property is inconsistent with the title of the owner of record); Vitale v. Pinto, 118 A.D.2d 774, 776, 500 N.Y.S.2d 283, 285 (2d Dept.1986) (mortgagee who was aware of tenant in possession had duty to inquire into tenant's interest in the property); M......
-
Fitzsimmons v. Mortg. Elec. Registration Sys. Inc. (In re Hill)
...N.E. 493). A mortgagee who does not make such inquiry will not be considered a bona fide encumbrancer for value ( see Vitale v. Pinto, 118 A.D.2d 774, 500 N.Y.S.2d 283). Here, MERS submitted documentary evidence in support of its motion for summary judgment which established its prima facie......