subordination clause in New York

2026The subordination clause in the convertible promissory note at issue did not restrict plaintiff's right to commence a proceeding against defendant upon its default under the note in order to reduce plaintiff's claim to a judgment ( see Standard Brands v Straile , 23 AD2d 363, 366 [1st Dept 1965]; Kornfeld v NRX Tech. , 93 AD2d 772, 772-773 [1st Dept 1983], affd 62 NY2d 686 [1984]).

2026The subordination clause in the convertible promissory note at issue did not restrict plaintiff's right to commence a proceeding against defendant upon its default under the note in order to reduce plaintiff's claim to a judgment ( see Standard Brands v Straile , 23 AD2d 363, 366 [1st Dept 1965]; Kornfeld v NRX Tech. , 93 AD2d 772 , 772-773 [1st Dept 1983], affd 62 NY2d 686 [1984]).

2008Bank v Hunt Props., 225 AD2d 678, 679 [1996], lv dismissed 89 NY2d 917 , 91 NY2d 866 [1996]; Finest Invs. v Security Trust Co. of Rochester, 96 AD2d 227, 229 [1983], affd 61 NY2d 897 [1984]).

2008Contrary to the contention of the Parkers, Alden is entitled to enforce the subordination clause of the building contract with the contractor based on its status as a third-party beneficiary of that subordination clause (see generally DeLine v CitiCapital Commercial Corp., 24 AD3d 1309 , 1311 [2005], lv denied 27 AD3d 1203 [2006]), and the terms of the subordination clause are not vague or ambiguous (cf. Pawling Sav.

2008Bank v Hunt Props., 225 AD2d 678, 679 [1996], lv dismissed 89 NY2d 917 , 91 NY2d 866 [1996]; Finest Invs. v Security Trust Co. of Rochester, 96 AD2d 227, 229 [1983], affd 61 NY2d 897 [1984]).

1983Bank v Eckerson Terrace, 47 NY2d 243, 247 ) and the subordination requirement of the statute has been held applicable only when a bank knowingly files a materially false statement (supra, at p 248).

1975Just as plaintiff contends that defendant could have limited the scope of the subordination clause with respect to mortgages that "may hereafter” affect the premises, the landlord could have clearly limited action for breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment (Loubon Realty Corp. v Moskowitz, 266 App Div 749 ).

1975In New York, a mortgagor retains legal title and the mortgagee merely has a lien thereon (Barson v Mulligan, 191 NY 306 ).

1975Plaintiff contends that the subordination clause clearly makes the lease subject to "all mortgages which may now or hereafter affect such leases” (Wagner v Van Schaick Realty Co., 163 App Div 632 ).

1975Plaintiff contends that the subordination clause clearly makes the lease subject to "all mortgages which may now or hereafter affect such leases” (Wagner v Van Schaick Realty Co., 163 App Div 632 ).

1969In 1900, in Franke v. Hewitt ( 56 App. Div. 497 ), equity refused to intervene in an action factually quite similar to the one at bar.

1964As stated by the court in Thonemann v. Stein ( 259 App. Div. 27, 29 , mot. for rearg. and lv. to app. den. 259 App. Div. 950 , lv. to app. den. 284 N. Y. 822 ): “ for it is a well-settled rule of construction that the recording ‘ is notice of the mortgage to all subsequent purchasers and mortgagees, and they are chargeable with all the consequences of such notice.’ ” (See, also, Home Owners’ Loan Corp. v. Wood, 170 Misc. 74 .) The plaintiff assignor in subjecting itself to the subordination clause specified a particular bank with the apparent understanding that it was relying upon the practice

1964As stated by the court in Thonemann v. Stein ( 259 App. Div. 27, 29 , mot. for rearg. and lv. to app. den. 259 App. Div. 950 , lv. to app. den. 284 N. Y. 822 ): “ for it is a well-settled rule of construction that the recording ‘ is notice of the mortgage to all subsequent purchasers and mortgagees, and they are chargeable with all the consequences of such notice.’ ” (See, also, Home Owners’ Loan Corp. v. Wood, 170 Misc. 74 .) The plaintiff assignor in subjecting itself to the subordination clause specified a particular bank with the apparent understanding that it was relying upon the practice

1964As stated by the court in Thonemann v. Stein ( 259 App. Div. 27, 29 , mot. for rearg. and lv. to app. den. 259 App. Div. 950 , lv. to app. den. 284 N. Y. 822 ): “ for it is a well-settled rule of construction that the recording ‘ is notice of the mortgage to all subsequent purchasers and mortgagees, and they are chargeable with all the consequences of such notice.’ ” (See, also, Home Owners’ Loan Corp. v. Wood, 170 Misc. 74 .) The plaintiff assignor in subjecting itself to the subordination clause specified a particular bank with the apparent understanding that it was relying upon the practice

1962While no New York case has been found dealing with interest in a subordination clause, as distinct from interest in a purchase-money mortgage, as the missing element, the interest rate of a mortgage to which a lease is to be subordinated would have material bearing on the lessee’s ability to carry on his business, and must be considered a “material element” (Gould v. Callan, 127 Cal. App. 2d 1 ).

1962True, in the purchase-money mortgage cases, the courts will imply that interest is at the legal rate and that the mortgage is to be payable on demand (Keystone Hardware Corp. v. Tague, supra; Spielvogel v. Veit, 197 App. Div. 804 ; see Ann. 60 A. L.

1962True, in the purchase-money mortgage cases, the courts will imply that interest is at the legal rate and that the mortgage is to be payable on demand (Keystone Hardware Corp. v. Tague, supra; Spielvogel v. Veit, 197 App. Div. 804 ; see Ann. 60 A. L.