Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
21 New York opinions name it 7 courts 1956–2026 8 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New York courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Fairmont Funding, Ltd. v. Stefanskygreen2 sentences2026"If the purchaser fails to use due diligence in examining the title, [the purchaser] is chargeable, as a matter of law, with notice of the facts which a proper inquiry would have disclosed" ( id. [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Alli v Navins Holdings, Inc. , 242 AD3d 801 , 802; Fairmont Funding v Stefansky , 301 AD2d 562, 564 ). 2025Further, as the LLC correctly contends, the recording of the mortgage did not provide notice for purposes of the relation-back doctrine. "'If [a] purchaser [of real property] fails to use due diligence in examining the title, he or she is chargeable, as a matter of law, with notice of the facts which a proper inquiry would have disclosed'" ( 436 Franklin Realty, LLC v U.S. Bank N.A. , 188 AD3d 960, 962 , quoting Fairmont Funding v Stefansky , 301 AD2d 562, 564 ). | 7 | 14 |
Congregation Beth Medrosh of Monsey, Inc. v. Rolling Acres Chestnut Ridge, LLCgreen2 sentences2020Accordingly, "'[i]f the purchaser fails to use due diligence in examining the title, he or she is chargeable, as a matter of law, with notice of the facts which a proper inquiry would have disclosed'" ( Emigrant Bank v Drimmer , 171 AD3d at 1134, quoting Fairmont Funding v Stefansky , 301 AD2d at 564 ; see Congregation Beth Medrosh of Monsey, Inc. v Rolling Acres Chestnut Ridge, LLC , 101 AD3d 797, 799 ). 2020"If the purchaser fails to use due diligence in examining the title, he or she is chargeable, as a matter of law, with notice of the facts which a proper inquiry would have disclosed" ( Fairmont Funding v Stefansky , 301 AD2d 562, 564 ; see Congregation Beth Medrosh of Monsey, Inc. v Rolling Acres Chestnut Ridge, LLC , 101 AD3d 797, 799 ). | 4 | 4 |
TCJS Corp. v. Koffgreen2 sentences2026"If the purchaser fails to use due diligence in examining the title, [the purchaser] is chargeable, as a matter of law, with notice of the facts which a proper inquiry would have disclosed" ( id. [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Alli v Navins Holdings, Inc. , 242 AD3d 801 , 802; Fairmont Funding v Stefansky , 301 AD2d 562, 564 ). 2025Therefore, to establish itself as a bona fide purchaser for value, a party has the burden of proving that it purchased the property for valuable consideration and did not have "knowledge of facts that would lead a reasonably prudent purchaser to make inquiry" (TCJS Corp. v Koff, 74 AD3d 1188, 1189 [2010] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Irwin v Regal 22 Corp., 175 AD3d 671, 672 [2019]; Berger v Polizzotto, 148 AD2d 651, 651-652 [1989]); Bello v. Ouellette, 211 AD3d 784, 785, 181 N.Y.S.3d 577 (2022). | 2 | 3 |
Astoria Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Junegreen2 sentences2019Sav. & Loan Assn. v June , 190 AD2d 644, 645 [2d Dept 1993] [same]). 2019Sav. & Loan Assn. v June , 190 AD2d 644, 645 [2d Dept 1993] [same]). | 2 | 3 |
Bello v. Ouellettegreen2 sentences2025Therefore, to establish itself as a bona fide purchaser for value, a party has the burden of proving that it purchased the property for valuable consideration and did not have knowledge of facts that would lead a reasonably prudent purchaser to make inquiry" ( Bello v Ouellette , 211 AD3d 784, 785 [2d Dept 2022 [citations and internal quotation marks omitted]). 2025Therefore, to establish itself as a bona fide purchaser for value, a party has the burden of proving that it purchased the property for valuable consideration and did not have knowledge of facts that would lead a reasonably prudent purchaser to make inquiry" ( Bello v Ouellette , 211 AD3d 784 , 785 [2d Dept 2022 [citations and internal quotation marks omitted]). | 2 | 2 |
Irwin v. Regal 22 Corp.green2 sentences2025Therefore, to establish itself as a bona fide purchaser for value, a party has the burden of proving that it purchased the property for valuable consideration and did not have "knowledge of facts that would lead a reasonably prudent purchaser to make inquiry" (TCJS Corp. v Koff, 74 AD3d 1188, 1189 [2010] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Irwin v Regal 22 Corp., 175 AD3d 671, 672 [2019]; Berger v Polizzotto, 148 AD2d 651, 651-652 [1989]); Bello v. Ouellette, 211 AD3d 784, 785, 181 N.Y.S.3d 577 (2022). 2025Therefore, to establish itself as a bona fide purchaser for value, a party has the burden of proving that it purchased the property for valuable consideration and did not have "knowledge of facts that would lead a reasonably prudent purchaser to make inquiry" (TCJS Corp. v Koff, 74 AD3d 1188, 1189 [2010] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Irwin v Regal 22 Corp., 175 AD3d 671, 672 [2019]; Berger v Polizzotto, 148 AD2d 651, 651-652 [1989]); Bello v. Ouellette, 211 AD3d 784, 785, 181 N.Y.S.3d 577 (2022). | 2 | 2 |
Berger v. Polizzottogreen2 sentences2025Therefore, to establish itself as a bona fide purchaser for value, a party has the burden of proving that it purchased the property for valuable consideration and did not have "knowledge of facts that would lead a reasonably prudent purchaser to make inquiry" (TCJS Corp. v Koff, 74 AD3d 1188, 1189 [2010] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Irwin v Regal 22 Corp., 175 AD3d 671, 672 [2019]; Berger v Polizzotto, 148 AD2d 651, 651-652 [1989]); Bello v. Ouellette, 211 AD3d 784, 785, 181 N.Y.S.3d 577 (2022). 2025Therefore, to establish itself as a bona fide purchaser for value, a party has the burden of proving that it purchased the property for valuable consideration and did not have "knowledge of facts that would lead a reasonably prudent purchaser to make inquiry" (TCJS Corp. v Koff, 74 AD3d 1188, 1189 [2010] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Irwin v Regal 22 Corp., 175 AD3d 671, 672 [2019]; Berger v Polizzotto, 148 AD2d 651, 651-652 [1989]); Bello v. Ouellette, 211 AD3d 784, 785, 181 N.Y.S.3d 577 (2022). | 1 | 2 |
Emigrant Bank v. Drimmergreen2 sentences2025"If the purchaser fails to use due diligence in examining the title, he or she is chargeable, as a matter of law, with notice of the facts which a proper inquiry would have disclosed" ( Emigrant Bank v Drimmer , 171 AD3d 1132 , 1134 [internal quotation marks omitted]). 2020Accordingly, "'[i]f the purchaser fails to use due diligence in examining the title, he or she is chargeable, as a matter of law, with notice of the facts which a proper inquiry would have disclosed'" ( Emigrant Bank v Drimmer , 171 AD3d at 1134, quoting Fairmont Funding v Stefansky , 301 AD2d at 564 ; see Congregation Beth Medrosh of Monsey, Inc. v Rolling Acres Chestnut Ridge, LLC , 101 AD3d 797, 799 ). | 1 | 2 |
Country-Wide Insurance v. Zablozkigreen2 sentences2025"Therefore, to establish itself as a bona fide purchaser for value, a party has the burden of proving that it purchased the property for valuable consideration and did not have knowledge of facts that would lead a reasonably prudent purchaser to make inquiry" (id.); Baker v. Beckford, No. 501985 /2019, 2023 WL 3635841, at *2 (NY Sup. Ct. Apr. 25, 2023).A bona fide purchaser of property upon which a constructive trust would otherwise be imposed takes free of the constructive trust, but a gratuitous donee, however innocent, does not (Simonds v Simonds, 45 NY2d 233, 242); Istel v. Istel, 258 AD2d 2025"Therefore, to establish itself as a bona fide purchaser for value, a party has the burden of proving that it purchased the property for valuable consideration and did not have knowledge of facts that would lead a reasonably prudent purchaser to make inquiry" (id.); Baker v. Beckford, No. 501985 /2019, 2023 WL 3635841, at *2 (NY Sup. Ct. Apr. 25, 2023).A bona fide purchaser of property upon which a constructive trust would otherwise be imposed takes free of the constructive trust, but a gratuitous donee, however innocent, does not (Simonds v Simonds, 45 NY2d 233, 242); Istel v. Istel, 258 AD2d | 1 | 1 |
Simonds v. Simondsgreen2 sentences2025"Therefore, to establish itself as a bona fide purchaser for value, a party has the burden of proving that it purchased the property for valuable consideration and did not have knowledge of facts that would lead a reasonably prudent purchaser to make inquiry" (id.); Baker v. Beckford, No. 501985 /2019, 2023 WL 3635841, at *2 (NY Sup. Ct. Apr. 25, 2023).A bona fide purchaser of property upon which a constructive trust would otherwise be imposed takes free of the constructive trust, but a gratuitous donee, however innocent, does not (Simonds v Simonds, 45 NY2d 233, 242); Istel v. Istel, 258 AD2d 2025"Therefore, to establish itself as a bona fide purchaser for value, a party has the burden of proving that it purchased the property for valuable consideration and did not have knowledge of facts that would lead a reasonably prudent purchaser to make inquiry" (id.); Baker v. Beckford, No. 501985 /2019, 2023 WL 3635841, at *2 (NY Sup. Ct. Apr. 25, 2023).A bona fide purchaser of property upon which a constructive trust would otherwise be imposed takes free of the constructive trust, but a gratuitous donee, however innocent, does not (Simonds v Simonds, 45 NY2d 233, 242); Istel v. Istel, 258 AD2d | 1 | 1 |
Cohalan v. Lechtreckergreen1 sentence2007Fairmont Funding v Stefansky, 301 AD2d 562, 564 [2003] [if a purchaser “fails to use due diligence in examining the title, he or she is chargeable, as a matter of law, with notice of the facts which a proper inquiry would have disclosed”]; Cohalan v Lechtrecker, 84 AD2d 775, 777 [1981] [“recorded declaration manifested to all prospective buyers the restriction which limited the use of the property”], affd 56 NY2d 861 [1982]). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New York. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
436 Franklin Realty, LLC v. U.S. Bank N.A.
green
2 sentences2025Further, as the LLC correctly contends, the recording of the mortgage did not provide notice for purposes of the relation-back doctrine. "'If [a] purchaser [of real property] fails to use due diligence in examining the title, he or she is chargeable, as a matter of law, with notice of the facts which a proper inquiry would have disclosed'" ( 436 Franklin Realty, LLC v U.S. Bank N.A. , 188 AD3d 960, 962 , quoting Fairmont Funding v Stefansky , 301 AD2d 562, 564 ). 2024"The recording of a transaction involving real property provides potential subsequent purchasers ... with notice of previous encumbrances that might affect their interests. [*12]If the [purchaser] fails to use due diligence in examining the title, he or she is chargeable, as a matter of law, with notice of the facts which a proper inquiry would have disclosed." ( Id., internal citations omitted) The Second Department recently considered circumstances similar to those at bar in 436 Franklin Realty, LLC v. U.S. Bank, N.A. , 188 AD3d 960 [2020]) In Franklin Realty , a foreclosure action commenced | 2 | 2024–2025 |
Ortiz v. Silver Invs.
green
1 sentence2025Moreover, "'[i]f a document purportedly conveying a property interest is void, it conveys nothing, and a subsequent bona fide purchaser or bona fide encumbrancer for value receives nothing'" ( HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Parker , 180 AD3d 1026 , 1028, quoting Ortiz v Silver Invs. , 165 AD3d 1156 , 1157; see Broder v Pallotta & Assoc. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Yen-Te Hsueh Chen v. Geranium Development Corp.
green
1 sentence2024"The recording of a transaction involving real property provides potential subsequent purchasers ... with notice of previous encumbrances that might affect their interests. [*12]If the [purchaser] fails to use due diligence in examining the title, he or she is chargeable, as a matter of law, with notice of the facts which a proper inquiry would have disclosed." ( Id., internal citations omitted) The Second Department recently considered circumstances similar to those at bar in 436 Franklin Realty, LLC v. U.S. Bank, N.A. , 188 AD3d 960 [2020]) In Franklin Realty , a foreclosure action commenced | 1 | 2024–2024 |
People ex rel. Unger v. Brann
green
1 sentence2022"If the purchaser fails to use due diligence in examining the title, he or she is chargeable, as a matter of law, with notice of the facts which a proper inquiry would have disclosed" ( id. [internal quotation marks omitted]). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Booth v. Ameriquest Mortgage Co.
green
1 sentence2019Co. , 63 AD3d 769, 769 ). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
In re Hill
neutral
1 sentence2019"If the purchaser fails to use due diligence in examining the title, he or she is chargeable, as a matter of law, with notice of the facts which a proper inquiry would have disclosed" ( id. at 564 ; see Congregation Beth Medrosh of Monsey, Inc. v Rolling Acres Chestnut Ridge, LLC , 101 AD3d 797, 799 ; Matter of Hill , 95 AD3d 889, 889 ; Booth v Ameriquest Mtge. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Cohalan v. Lechtrecker
neutral
1 sentence2007Fairmont Funding v Stefansky, 301 AD2d 562, 564 [2003] [if a purchaser “fails to use due diligence in examining the title, he or she is chargeable, as a matter of law, with notice of the facts which a proper inquiry would have disclosed”]; Cohalan v Lechtrecker, 84 AD2d 775, 777 [1981] [“recorded declaration manifested to all prospective buyers the restriction which limited the use of the property”], affd 56 NY2d 861 [1982]). | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Cambridge Valley Bank v. . Delano
green
1 sentence2003Bank v Delano, 48 NY 326 ; Astoria Fed. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
People v. . Luhrs
green
1 sentence2003If the purchaser fails to use due diligence in examining the title, he or she is chargeable, as a matter of law, with notice of the facts which a proper inquiry would have disclosed (see People v Luhrs, 195 NY 377 ; Cambridge Val. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Higgins v. . Crouse
green
1 sentence1956(Higgins v. Crouse, 147 N. Y. 411 , supra.) On June 17,1944 the defendant bank foreclosed on 330 shares of common stock of the estate which it held as collateral, and on September 11,1945 it foreclosed on 45 additional shares of common stock owned by the estate of Elnora Erbe which had been pledged as collateral to the loan of her husband, Frederick Gr. | 1 | 1956–1956 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.