duty to make inquiry in New York

2020Assn. v Ally , 39 AD3d 597, 599-600 ). "[A] mortgagee is under a duty to make an inquiry where it is aware of facts that would lead a reasonable, prudent lender to make inquiries of the circumstances of the transaction at issue'" ( Stracham v Bresnick , 76 AD3d 1009 , 1010, quoting LaSalle Bank Natl.

2019Assn. v Ally , 39 AD3d 597, 599-600 ). "[A] mortgagee is under a duty to make an inquiry where it is aware of facts that would lead a reasonable, prudent lender to make inquiries of the circumstances of the transaction at issue'" ( Stracham v Bresnick , 76 AD3d 1009 , 1010, quoting LaSalle Bank Natl.

2017However, equitable estoppel will not toll a limitations statute where a plaintiff possesses timely knowledge sufficient to place a plaintiff under a duty to make inquiry and ascertain all the relevant facts prior to the expiration of the applicable statute of limitations ( see Gleason v Spota , [*3] 194 AD2d 764, 765 [1993]; McIvor v Di Benedetto , 121 AD2d 519, 520 [1986]; Augstein v Levey , 3 AD2d 595, 598 [1957]).

2017However, equitable estoppel will not toll a limitations statute where a plaintiff possesses timely knowledge sufficient to place a plaintiff under a duty to make inquiry and ascertain all the relevant facts prior to the expiration of the applicable statute of limitations ( see Gleason v Spota , [*3] 194 AD2d 764, 765 [1993]; McIvor v Di Benedetto , 121 AD2d 519, 520 [1986]; Augstein v Levey , 3 AD2d 595, 598 [1957]).

2024"A mortgagee's interest in the property is protected unless it has notice of a previous fraud affecting the title of its grantor" ( Thomas v LaSalle Bank N.A. , 79 AD3d 1015, 1017 ; see Real Property Law § 266; 2386 Hempstead, Inc. v 182 St., Inc. , 184 AD3d 783, 784 ). "[A] mortgagee is under a duty to make an inquiry where it is aware of facts 'that would lead a reasonable, prudent lender to make inquiries of the circumstances of the transaction at issue'" ( Stracham v Bresnick , 76 AD3d 1009 , 1010, quoting LaSalle Bank Natl.

2017“A mortgagee’s interest in the property is protected unless it has notice of a previous fraud affecting the title of its grantor” (JP Morgan Chase Bank v Munoz, 85 AD3d 1124, 1125-1126 [2011] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Real Property Law § 266; Thomas v LaSalle Bank N.A., 79 AD3d 1015, 1017 [2010]; Fischer v Sadov Realty Corp., 34 AD3d 630, 631 [2006]; Karan v Hoskins, 22 AD3d 638 [2005]). “ ‘[A] mortgagee is under a duty to make an inquiry where it is aware of facts that would lead a reasonable, prudent lender to make inquiries of the circumstances of the transaction at issue’ ” (

2025The plaintiff appeals. "[A] mortgagee is under a duty to make an inquiry where it is aware of facts that would lead a reasonable, prudent lender to make inquiries of the circumstances of the transaction at issue" ( Feggins v Marks , 229 AD3d 691 , 692 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see JP Morgan Chase Bank v Munoz , 85 AD3d 1124, 1126 ).

2024Fund I, L.P. v Halifax Group, LLC , 148 AD3d 744, 746 , quoting JP Morgan Chase Bank v Munoz , 85 AD3d 1124, 1125-1126 ). "[A] mortgagee is under a duty to make an inquiry where it is aware of facts 'that would lead a reasonable, prudent lender to make inquiries of the circumstances of the transaction at issue'" ( Stracham v Bresnick , 76 AD3d 1009 , 1010, quoting LaSalle Bank Natl.

2017However, equitable estoppel will not toll a limitations statute where a plaintiff possesses timely knowledge sufficient to place a plaintiff under a duty to make inquiry and ascertain all the relevant facts prior to the expiration of the applicable statute of limitations ( see Gleason v Spota , [*3] 194 AD2d 764, 765 [1993]; McIvor v Di Benedetto , 121 AD2d 519, 520 [1986]; Augstein v Levey , 3 AD2d 595, 598 [1957]).

2017However, equitable estoppel will not toll a limitations statute where a plaintiff possesses timely knowledge sufficient to place a plaintiff under a duty to make inquiry and ascertain all the relevant facts prior to the expiration of the applicable statute of limitations ( see Gleason v Spota , [*3] 194 AD2d 764, 765 [1993]; McIvor v Di Benedetto , 121 AD2d 519, 520 [1986]; Augstein v Levey , 3 AD2d 595, 598 [1957]).

2016To the extent that statutory tolling provisions for individuals under a disability may have extended plaintiffs’ claim that decedent lacked the capacity to execute the 1988 deed (see CPLR 208, 213 [1]), * we note that “equitable estoppel will not toll a limitations statute when parties possess ‘timely knowledge’ sufficient to place them ‘under a duty to make inquiry and ascertain ... all the relevant facts’ ” (Ramsay v Mary Imogene Bassett Hosp., 113 AD2d 149, 153 [1985], lvs dismissed 67 NY2d 608 , 1028 [1986], quoting Augstein v Levey, 3 AD2d 595, 598 [1957], affd 4 NY2d 791 [1958]; see Rite

2016To the extent that statutory tolling provisions for individuals under a disability may have extended plaintiffs' claim that decedent lacked the capacity to execute the 1988 deed (see CPLR 208; 213 [1]),1 we note that "equitable estoppel will not toll a limitations statute when parties possess 'timely knowledge' sufficient to place them 'under a duty to make inquiry and ascertain . . . all the relevant facts'" (Ramsay v Mary Imogene Bassett Hosp., 113 AD2d 149, 153 [1985], lvs dismissed 67 NY2d 608 , 1028 [1986], quoting Augstein v Levey, 3 AD2d 595, 598 [1957], affd 4 NY2d 791 [1958]; see Rite

2018The malpractice claim was properly dismissed as time-barred ( see CPLR 214[6]), and the doctrine of equitable estoppel "will not toll a limitations statute where plaintiffs possessed timely knowledge sufficient to have placed them under a duty to make inquiry and ascertain all the relevant facts prior to the expiration of the applicable statute of limitations" ( Rite Aid Corp. v Grass , 48 AD3d 363, 364-365 [1st Dept 2008]).

2017Moreover, plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate their due diligence, for they were on inquiry notice by at least 2008 and failed to make a reasonable investigation (see Rite Aid Corp. v Grass, 48 AD3d 363, 364-365 [1st Dept 2008] [“(E)quitable estoppel . . . will not toll a limitations statute where plaintiffs possessed timely knowledge sufficient to have placed them under a duty to make inquiry”]).

2016Hosp., 237 AD2d 725, 726 [1997], lv denied 90 NY2d 802 [1997]).

2016Hosp., 237 AD2d 725, 726 [1997], lv denied 90 NY2d 802 [1997]).

2017However, equitable estoppel will not toll a limitations statute where a plaintiff possesses timely knowledge sufficient to place a plaintiff under a duty to make inquiry and ascertain all the relevant facts prior to the expiration of the applicable statute of limitations ( see Gleason v Spota , [*3] 194 AD2d 764, 765 [1993]; McIvor v Di Benedetto , 121 AD2d 519, 520 [1986]; Augstein v Levey , 3 AD2d 595, 598 [1957]).

2017However, equitable estoppel will not toll a limitations statute where a plaintiff possesses timely knowledge sufficient to place a plaintiff under a duty to make inquiry and ascertain all the relevant facts prior to the expiration of the applicable statute of limitations ( see Gleason v Spota , [*3] 194 AD2d 764, 765 [1993]; McIvor v Di Benedetto , 121 AD2d 519, 520 [1986]; Augstein v Levey , 3 AD2d 595, 598 [1957]).

2022"A mortgagee is under a duty to make an inquiry where it is aware of facts that would lead a reasonable, prudent lender to make inquiries of the circumstances of the transaction at issue" ( Wells Fargo, N.A. v Savinetti , 116 AD3d at 766 [alterations and internal quotation marks omitted]).

2021"A mortgagee is under a duty to make an inquiry where it is aware of facts that would lead a reasonable, [*3]prudent lender to make inquiries of the circumstances of the transaction at issue" ( Wells Fargo, N.A. v Savinetti , 116 AD3d at 766 [internal quotation marks omitted]).

2016This knowledge placed them under a duty to make inquiry (see Pulver v Dougherty, 58 AD3d 978, 980 [2009]; Davis v Smith Corp., 262 AD2d 752, 754 [1999]; Contento v Cortland Mem.

2016This knowledge placed them under a duty to make inquiry (see Pulver v Dougherty, 58 AD3d 978, 980 [2009]; Davis v Smith Corp., 262 AD2d 752, 754 [1999]; Contento v Cortland Mem.

2026People v Grant , 203 AD3d 477, 477-478 [1st Dept 2022], lv denied 38 NY3d 1033 [2022]).

2024"A mortgagee's interest in the property is protected unless it has notice of a previous fraud affecting the title of its grantor" ( Thomas v LaSalle Bank N.A. , 79 AD3d 1015, 1017 ; see Real Property Law § 266; 2386 Hempstead, Inc. v 182 St., Inc. , 184 AD3d 783, 784 ). "[A] mortgagee is under a duty to make an inquiry where it is aware of facts 'that would lead a reasonable, prudent lender to make inquiries of the circumstances of the transaction at issue'" ( Stracham v Bresnick , 76 AD3d 1009 , 1010, quoting LaSalle Bank Natl.

2024Assn. v Ally , 39 AD3d 597, 600 ; see 2386 Hempstead, Inc. v 182 St., Inc. , 184 AD3d at 785 ).

2023"Under the doctrine of equitable subrogation [w]here property of one person is used in discharging an obligation owed by another or a lien upon the property of another, under such circumstances that the other would be unjustly enriched by the retention of the benefit thus conferred, the former is entitled to be subrogated to the position of the obligee or lienholder" ( US Bank, N.A. v Juliano , 184 AD3d 597, 599 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Filan v Dellaria , 144 AD3d 967, 972 ).

2023"Under the doctrine of equitable subrogation [w]here property of one person is used in discharging an obligation owed by another or a lien upon the property of another, under such circumstances that the other would be unjustly enriched by the retention of the benefit thus conferred, the former is entitled to be subrogated to the position of the obligee or lienholder" ( US Bank, N.A. v Juliano , 184 AD3d 597, 599 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Filan v Dellaria , 144 AD3d 967, 972 ).

2022Moreover, an assignee "stands in the shoes of the assignor and takes the assignment subject to any preexisting liabilities" ( PennyMac Corp. v Dean-Phillips , 189 AD3d 1603, 1604 [internal quotation marks omitted]).

2020Assn. v Ally , 39 AD3d 597, 600 ; see Congregation Beth Medrosh of Monsey, Inc. v Rolling Acres Chestnut Ridge, LLC , 101 AD3d 797, 799 ).

2017“A mortgagee’s interest in the property is protected unless it has notice of a previous fraud affecting the title of its grantor” (JP Morgan Chase Bank v Munoz, 85 AD3d 1124, 1125-1126 [2011] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Real Property Law § 266; Thomas v LaSalle Bank N.A., 79 AD3d 1015, 1017 [2010]; Fischer v Sadov Realty Corp., 34 AD3d 630, 631 [2006]; Karan v Hoskins, 22 AD3d 638 [2005]). “ ‘[A] mortgagee is under a duty to make an inquiry where it is aware of facts that would lead a reasonable, prudent lender to make inquiries of the circumstances of the transaction at issue’ ” (

2016This knowledge placed them under a duty to make inquiry (see Pulver v Dougherty, 58 AD3d 978, 980 [2009]; Davis v Smith Corp., 262 AD2d 752, 754 [1999]; Contento v Cortland Mem.

2016This knowledge placed them under a duty to make inquiry (see Pulver v Dougherty, 58 AD3d 978, 980 [2009]; Davis v Smith Corp., 262 AD2d 752, 754 [1999]; Contento v Cortland Mem.

2016Such is the case here, inasmuch as the 1988 deed was duly recorded, and the effect of that recording was to give plaintiffs and anyone else with an interest in the subject property constructive notice of that transfer (see Andy Assoc. v Bankers Trust Co., 49 NY2d 13, 20-24 [1979]; Puchalski v Wedemeyer, 185 AD2d 563, 565 [1992]; see also Real Property Law art 9).

2016Such is the case here, inasmuch as the 1988 deed was duly recorded, and the effect of that recording was to give plaintiffs and anyone else with an interest in the subject property constructive notice of that transfer (see Andy Assoc. v Bankers Trust Co., 49 NY2d 13, 20-24 [1979]; Puchalski v Wedemeyer, 185 AD2d 563, 565 [1992]; see also Real Property Law art 9).

2016Such is the case here, inasmuch as the 1988 deed was duly recorded, and the effect of that recording was to give plaintiffs and anyone else with an interest in the subject property constructive notice of that transfer (see Andy Assoc. v Bankers Trust Co., 49 NY2d 13, 20-24 [1979]; Puchalski v Wedemeyer, 185 AD2d 563, 565 [1992]; see also Real Property Law art 9).

2016Such is the case here, inasmuch as the 1988 deed was duly recorded, and the effect of that recording was to give plaintiffs and anyone else with an interest in the subject property constructive notice of that transfer (see Andy Assoc. v Bankers Trust Co., 49 NY2d 13, 20-24 [1979]; Puchalski v Wedemeyer, 185 AD2d 563, 565 [1992]; see also Real Property Law art 9).

2014Mgt., Inc., 97 AD3d at 643, quoting LaSalle Bank Natl.

2011Co., 63 AD3d 769, 769 [2009]).