From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Barringer v. European American Bank & Trust Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 14, 1988
138 A.D.2d 437 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)

Opinion

March 14, 1988

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Saladino, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs.

The plaintiffs entered into a lease with the judgment debtor on September 1, 1982, pursuant to which the plaintiffs were given an option to purchase the subject real property for $41,000. On October 9, 1984, the plaintiffs exercised their option to purchase. However, they were forced to sue the judgment debtor to compel specific performance of the agreement. After obtaining a judgment in their favor, the plaintiffs entered into a contract for the purchase of the premises with the judgment debtor. The net effect of the contract was to increase the purchase price to $70,000, the amount required to satisfy the existing first and second mortgages of record. The contract, which was recorded on October 7, 1985, further provided that the judgment debtor would receive no funds from the sale. The defendants subsequently docketed three judgments against the judgment debtor.

We agree with the Supreme Court that the plaintiffs became the equitable owners of the property upon exercising their option to purchase the property which was prior to the time the defendants' judgments were docketed (New York Cent. Hudson Riv. R.R. Co. v Cottle, 187 App. Div. 131, affd 229 N.Y. 514; Bean v. Walker, 95 A.D.2d 70; Bullock v. Cutting, 155 App. Div. 825). The defendants' contention that the plaintiffs failed to provide valid consideration for the contract is without merit. The plaintiffs agreed to pay a fair price for the property when they entered into the lease containing the option to purchase in 1982. Upon docketing their judgments against the judgment debtor, the defendants' lien could attach only to those rights in the premises to which the judgment debtor was then entitled. Since the judgment debtor, pursuant to the terms of the contract, retained no right to payment or to the asset itself, the defendants were entitled to nothing (Moyer v. Hinman, 13 N.Y. 180; Uffenheimer v. Rob Con Enters., 74 A.D.2d 899; Buffalo Sav. Bank v. Siger, Inc., 28 A.D.2d 815, mot denied 20 N.Y.2d 776, affd 21 N.Y.2d 993, rearg denied 22 N.Y.2d 828). Therefore, the plaintiffs are entitled to a declaration that the defendants' judgments are not liens upon the subject premises and directing the Clerk of the County of Suffolk to make the appropriate endorsements vacating and discharging said judgments as liens of record as to the subject property.

We further find that the motion of the defendant First Island Partners L.P. to amend or supplement its answer was properly denied (see, Norman v. Ferrara, 107 A.D.2d 739; Goldstein v Brogan Cadillac Oldsmobile Corp., 90 A.D.2d 512). Lawrence, J.P., Kunzeman, Kooper and Balletta, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Barringer v. European American Bank & Trust Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 14, 1988
138 A.D.2d 437 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)
Case details for

Barringer v. European American Bank & Trust Co.

Case Details

Full title:AL BARRINGER et al., Respondents, v. EUROPEAN AMERICAN BANK TRUST COMPANY…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Mar 14, 1988

Citations

138 A.D.2d 437 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)

Citing Cases

Fin. Assistance, Inc. v. Graham

That documentary evidence showed that the 2009 judgment was not recorded until after the judgment debtor,…

Macaluso v. Stromer

We affirm. The evidence adduced at the trial supports the trial court's conclusion that the option to…