Majority
In this foreclosure action commenced by the plaintiff after Dombek defaulted under the July 2005 mortgage, the appellants contend that the doctrine of equitable subrogation applies so that their lien is to be given priority over the plaintiffs lien (see Bank One v Mon Leang Mui, 38 AD3d 809 [2007], citing King v Pelkofski, 20 NY2d 326 [1967]). Given the existence of triable issues of fact as to whether the appellants were on notice of the July 2005 mortgage at the time they executed their mortgage, the Supreme Court erred in granting those branches of the plaintiffs motion which were for summary judgment on the complaint and to strike the affirmative defense of equitable subrogation asserted in the answer (see King v Pelkofski, 20 NY2d 326 [1967]; Roth v Porush, 281 AD2d 612 [2001]; cf. LaSalle Bank Natl. Assn. v Ally, 39 AD3d 597 [2007]). Skelos, J.P., Eng, Austin and Roman, JJ., concur.
Cases cited
- Bank One v. Mon Leang Mui 38 AD3d 809 p. 1042
- King v. Pelkofski 20 NY2d 326 p. 1042
- LaSalle Bank National Ass'n v. Ally 39 AD3d 597 p. 1042