Significant case in which the Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed the lower court and rendered summary judgment in favor of defendant lender, dismissing quiet title claims of plaintiff prior purchase money mortgagee which recorded a satisfaction of its prior mortgage in error. Defendant lender accepted a mortgage in reliance on a recorded satisfaction of plaintiff’s prior purchase money mortgage. Plaintiff’s filed its notice of pendency of its claim seeking equitable subrogation to its purchase money mortgage prior to the recording of defendant lender’s mortgage. The court held that even though the defendant lender’s mortgage was subject to plaintiff’s notice of pendency, plaintiff’s underlying claim for equitable subrogation and mortgage priority as to defendant lender was to be dismissed as a matter of law. Since the recording of the satisfaction was the result of the negligence of the plaintiff lender’s agent, such fault was imputed to plaintiff. The equities therefore did not weigh decisively in plaintiff’s favor where the defendant lender accepted its mortgage in reliance on the recorded satisfaction and had no notice the satisfaction was recorded in error.

Claim by unit owner against multiple title underwriters for conspiracy with condominium to omit plaintiff’s notice of pendency from title reports to enable re-sale of other units at inflated values dismissed on motion. Plaintiff failed to state how she was damaged by the alleged conspiracy.

Case of first impression where the court refused to hold the defendant’s removal of plaintiff’s foreclosure action to federal court divested the state court of jurisdiction to enter the judgment of foreclosure and sale. Defendant untimely filed a notice of removal immediately prior to the signing of judgment of foreclosure in the state court. The notice of removal was untimely and in bad faith.  The case was remanded back to state court shortly after removal. In the interim and without notice of the removal, the state court signed the judgment of foreclosure. The defendant waited over ten years to seek to vacate the foreclosure sale. The court acknowledged a removal normally divests the lower court of jurisdiction. However, the court refused to vacate the judgment of foreclosure as it would only reward the defendant’s actions.