From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Goldstein v. Gold, Adler

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Oct 8, 1985
66 N.Y.2d 624 (N.Y. 1985)

Opinion

Argued September 4, 1985

Decided October 8, 1985

Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department, Sidney Leviss, J.

Matthew Dollinger and Dennis M. Gonski for appellant.

Wilbur G. Silverman for respondent.



Order affirmed, with costs, for the reasons stated in the opinion by Justice (now Judge) Vito J. Titone at the Appellate Division ( 106 A.D.2d 100), only insofar as the opinion holds that the intervening defendant, who purchased the property encumbered by the mortgage, is bound by a notice of pendency filed prior to the recording of his deed and the satisfaction of mortgage.

Concur: Chief Judge WACHTLER and Judges JASEN, MEYER, SIMONS, KAYE and ALEXANDER. Taking no part: Judge TITONE.


Summaries of

Goldstein v. Gold, Adler

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Oct 8, 1985
66 N.Y.2d 624 (N.Y. 1985)
Case details for

Goldstein v. Gold, Adler

Case Details

Full title:DAVID GOLDSTEIN, Respondent, v. FRANCES GOLD et al., Defendants, and PAUL…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Oct 8, 1985

Citations

66 N.Y.2d 624 (N.Y. 1985)
495 N.Y.S.2d 32
485 N.E.2d 239

Citing Cases

Prendergast v. Swiencicky

Upon receipt of the payment, each lender was statutorily bound to have a mortgage satisfaction timely…

Watson v. Melnikoff

. . . That the [mortgagee] lacks actual knowledge of the filing is irrelevant as the principle underlying the…