Yen-Te Hsueh Chen v. Geranium Dev. Corp., 243 A.D.2d 708 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 1997). · Go Syfert
Search
Yen-Te Hsueh Chen v. Geranium Dev. Corp., 243 A.D.2d 708 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 1997). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
70 citation events (62 in the last 25 years) across 8 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Provident Bank v. Cmty. Home Mortg. Corp., 498 F. Supp. 2d 558 (E.D.N.Y. 2007)
Treatment trajectory · 1999 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1999 2012 2026
How cited ↗
Cited for
At page 709 Protecting good faith purchasers under the recording act27 citing cases“the status of good faith purchaser for value cannot be maintained by a purchaser with either notice or knowledge of a prior interest or equity in the property, or one with knowledge of facts that would lead a reasonably prudent purchaser to make inquiries concerning such”10 citing courts quote it · passage not found verbatim in the opinion (90%) · 23 listed here
  • 180 Remsen LLC v. St. Francis Coll., 2026 NY Slip Op 30868(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty. 2026).unpublished
    (a subsequent buyer is not a bona fide buyer if it relied on a “bare representation” by the seller that prior contracts for the property “had been cancelled)
  • Jane 8 LLC v. Rosenblum, 2025 NY Slip Op 51612(U) (Civ. Ct. NYC, NY Cty. 2025).unpublished 3 cites
    Corp. , 243 AD2d 708, 709 [2d Dept 1997] [internal citations omitted]).
  • Freedom Mtge. Corp. v. Engel, 2024 NY Slip Op 24226 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Orange Cty. 2024).published
    Corp. , 243 AD2d 708, 709 [2d Dept 1997]).
  • HSBC Bank, USA, N.A. v. Islam, 2024 NY Slip Op 30570(U) (N.Y. Sup. Kings 2024).unpublished 2 cites
    "The New York RecordingAct(Real Property Law§ 290 et seq,), inter alia, protects a good faith purchaser for value from an unrecorded interest in a property, provided such a purchaser's interest is first to be duly recorded" (Yen.,Te Hsueh…
  • JMMJ Dev., LLC v. Town of Greenport, 222 A.D.3d 1281 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2023).published
    Corp. , 243 AD2d 708, 709 [2d Dept 1997], lv dismissed 91 NY2d 921 [1998]; see Rensselaer Polytechnic Inst. v Schubert , 170 AD3d 1307 , 1312 [3d Dept 2019]; Stasack v Dooley , 292 AD2d 698, 700 [3d Dept 2002]; Strnad v Brudnicki , 200 AD2…
  • AMK Capital Corp. v. Cifre Realty Corp. (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2023).unpublished 2 cites
    Corp. , 243 AD2d 708, 709 [2d Dept 1997]; Berger v Polizzotto , 148 AD2d 651, 652 [2d Dept 1989]).
  • 71-21 Loubet, LLC v. Bank of Am., N.A., 208 A.D.3d 736 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2022).published
    Corp. , 243 AD2d 708, 709 [emphasis omitted]; see 436 Franklin Realty, LLC v U.S. Bank N.A. , 188 AD3d 960, 962 ).
  • Amalfi, Inc. v. 428 Co., Inc., 185 A.D.3d 1553 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep't 2020).published
    Corp. , 243 AD2d 708, 709 [2d Dept 1997], lv dismissed 91 NY2d 921 [1998], rearg denied 91 NY2d 949 [1998]; see Vanderbilt Brookland, LLC , 147 AD3d at 1109-1110 ; Tanzini v Sunset Beach Prop.
  • Emigrant Bank v. Drimmer, 171 A.D.3d 1132 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2019).published
    Corp. , 243 AD2d 708, 709 [emphasis omitted]; see Real Property Law § 291; Gregg v M & T Bank Corp. , 160 AD3d 936 , 940). " The status of good faith purchaser for value cannot be maintained by a purchaser with either notice or knowledge o…
  • Ud 1635, LLC v. Winkler, 156 A.D.3d 742 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2017).published
    Corp., 243 AD2d 708, 709 [1997]; see T & V Constr, Inc. v Calapai, 90 AD3d 908, 908 [2011]; Sprint Equities [NY], Inc. v Sylvester, 71 AD3d 664, 665 [2010]).
Show 13 more citing cases
  • Vanderbilt Brookland, LLC v. Vanderbilt Myrtle, Inc., 147 A.D.3d 1106 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2017).published 2 cites
    Corp., 243 AD2d 708, 709 [1997]; see Real Property Law §§ 291, 294).
  • Bouffard v. Befese, 111 A.D.3d 866 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2013).published 2 cites
    Corp., 243 AD2d 708, 709 [1997]; Astoria Fed.
  • Beltway Capital, LLC v. Soleil, 104 A.D.3d 628 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2013).published 2 cites
    Corp., 243 AD2d 708, 709 [1997]).
  • 89 Pine Hollow Road Realty Corp. v. Am. Tax Fund, 96 A.D.3d 995 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2012).published 2 cites
    Corp., 243 AD2d 708, 709 [1997]).
  • T & V Constructiion, Inc. v. Calapai, 90 A.D.3d 908 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2011).published
    Corp., 243 AD2d 708, 709 [1997]).
  • Sprint Equities (NY), Inc. v. Sylvester, 71 A.D.3d 664 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2010).published
    Corp., 243 AD2d 708, 709 [1997]).
  • Seafood House, Inc. v. Anh Pham, 61 A.D.3d 663 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2009).published
    Corp., 243 AD2d 708, 709 [1997]; see generally Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129, 134 [1985]).
  • 2386 Creston Avenue Realty, LLC v. M-P-M Mgmt. Corp., 58 A.D.3d 158 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 2008).published
    Corp., 243 AD2d 708, 709 [1997], Iv dismissed 91 NY2d 921 [1998]), plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that Pioneer had knowledge of plaintiff’s contract with M-P-M and thus was not a good faith purchaser.
  • Mallick v. Farfan, 33 A.D.3d 762 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2006).published
    Corp., 243 AD2d 708, 709 [1997]; Morrocoy Mar. v Altengarten, 120 AD2d 500 [1986]).
  • Transland Assets, Inc. v. Davis, 29 A.D.3d 679 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2006).published
    Corp., 243 AD2d 708, 709 [1997]; Morrocoy Mar. v Altengarten, 120 AD2d 500 [1986]; Goldstein v Gold, 106 AD2d 100, 101-102 [1984], affd 66 NY2d 624 [1985]; 11 Warren’s Weed, New York Real Property, Recording §§ 1.05, 1.07 [4th ed).
  • Ulysses I & Co. v. First Am. Title Ins., 309 A.D.2d 643 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 2003).published
    Corp., 243 AD2d 708, 709 [1997]).
  • Rivas v. McDonnell, 308 A.D.2d 572 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2003).published
    Corp., 243 AD2d 708, 709 [1997]; Morrocoy Mar. v Altengarten, 120 AD2d 500 [1986]; Goldstein v Gold, 106 AD2d 100, 101-102 [1984], affd 66 NY2d 624 [1985]; Real Property Law § 291; 11 Warren’s Weed, NY Real Property, Recording §§ 1.05, 1.0…
  • Nagavi v. Newcomb, 305 A.D.2d 904 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2003).published
    Corp, 243 AD2d 708, 709 [1997], lv dismissed 91 NY2d 921 [1998]; Pollack v Viele, 273 App Div 871, 871 [1948], affd 298 NY 670 [1948]).
663 N.Y.S.2d at 289 The New York Recording Act ... inter alia, protects a good faith purchaser for value from an unrecorded interest in a property, provided such a purchaser’s interest is first to be duly recorded.2 citing cases1 citing court put it this way
  • Provident Bank v. Cmty. Home Mortg. Corp., 498 F. Supp. 2d 558 (E.D.N.Y. 2007).published 2 cites
    (The New York Recording Act ... inter alia, protects a good faith purchaser for value from an unrecorded interest in a property, provided such a purchaser’s interest is first to be duly recorded.)
  • Aurora Loan Servs. LLC v. Sadek, 809 F. Supp. 2d 235 (S.D.N.Y. 2011).published
    Corp., 243 A.D.2d 708 , 663 N.Y.S.2d 288, 289 (N.Y.App.Div.1997).
663 N.Y.S.2d at 290 cited at this page1 citing case
  • In Re Rodriguez, 261 B.R. 92 (E.D.N.Y. 2001).published
    Chen v. Geranium Development Corp., 243 A.D.2d 708, 709 , 663 N.Y.S.2d 288, 290 (2d Dept.1997); Reynolds v. Springer Service Station, Inc., 151 A.D.2d 466, 467 , 542 N.Y.S.2d 256, 257 (2d Dept.1989).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Yen-Te Hsueh Chen
v.
Geranium Development Corp., and Fandy Corp., Proposed Intervenors-Appellants
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Oct 27, 1997.
Published opinion
243 A.D.2d 708
1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10808
Cited by 48 opinions  |  Published

In an action, inter alia, to foreclose a contract-vendee’s lien on real property, the proposed intervenors Fandy Corp. and Long Island Savings Bank appeal from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Polizzi, J.), dated September 27, 1996, which, after a hearing, granted the plaintiffs motion for reargument, and, upon reargument, inter alia, denied the appellants’ motion insofar as they sought to intervene and to vacate a judgment of foreclosure and sale of the same court dated June 22, 1995, and (2) an order of the same court dated February 21, 1997, which denied their motion denominated as one for reargument and renewal but which was, in effect, one for reargument of the prior motion.

Ordered that the appeal from the order dated February 21, 1997, is dismissed, as no appeal lies from an order denying re-argument; and it is further,

Ordered that the order dated September 27, 1996, is affirmed, and it is further,

Ordered that the plaintiff is awarded one bill of costs.

The plaintiff contracted with the defendant Geranium Development Corp. (hereinafter Geranium Development) to purchase certain commercial parcels located in Queens, New York. The plaintiff did not record the contracts. After a dispute arose concerning the contracts and the return of the plaintiffs down payments, the plaintiff commenced this action, inter alia, to foreclose a contract-vendee’s lien. By judgment of foreclosure and sale dated June 22, 1995, the court held in favor of the plaintiff and ordered the subject parcels sold at public auction.

Upon learning of the impending sale, the proposed intervenors Fandy Corp. (hereinafter Fandy) and Long Island Savings Bank (hereinafter LISB) moved for an order, inter alia, granting leave to intervene and vacating the plaintiffs judgment of foreclosure and sale. Fandy had obtained title to the subject parcels from Geranium Development by deeds dated October 25, 1989, prior to the recordation of any interest in the parcels by the plaintiff. The appellants argued, inter alia, that, as good[*709] faith purchasers for value, they had an interest in the parcels that is superior to that of the plaintiff. The Supreme Court denied their motion, inter alia, to vacate the judgment of foreclosure and sale, and we affirm.

The New York Recording Act (Real Property Law § 290 et seq.), inter alia, protects a good faith purchaser for value from an unrecorded interest in a property, provided such a purchaser’s interest is first to be duly recorded (see, e.g., Real Property Law §§ 291, 294). The status of good faith purchaser for . value cannot be maintained by a purchaser with either notice or knowledge of a prior interest or equity in the property, or one with knowledge of facts that would lead a reasonably prudent purchaser to make inquiries concerning such (see, Barrett v Littles, 201 AD2d 444; United Matura Realty v Reade Indus., 155 AD2d 660; Morrocoy Marina v Altengarten, 120 AD2d 500; Vitale v Pinto, 118 AD2d 774).

Here, the appellants do not dispute that they had actual knowledge of the prior contracts between Geranium Development and the plaintiff for the sale of the subject parcels. Indeed, the appellants’ contract of sale with Geranium Development was expressly conditioned upon the cancellation of such contracts. However, despite this knowledge, the appellants merely accepted, without any proof or inquiry, independent or otherwise, a bare representation prior to their closing that the contracts had been cancelled. Thus, regardless of any issue as to recordation, the Supreme Court did not err in finding that the appellants had not met their burden of proving that they were good faith purchasers for value, and in denying their motion to set aside the plaintiffs judgment of foreclosure (see, United Matura Realty v Reade Indus., supra). Rosenblatt, J. P., Ritter, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.