N.Y. Laws » CHAPTER Real Property / ARTICLE Recording Instruments Affecting Real Property
New York Consolidated Laws

N.Y. Real Property Law § 320 (2026)

Certain deeds deemed mortgages

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NY-LEGnysenate.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar 
§ 320. Certain deeds deemed mortgages. A deed conveying real property,
which, by any other written instrument, appears to be intended only as a
security in the nature of a mortgage, although an absolute conveyance in
terms, must be considered a mortgage; and the person for whose benefit
such deed is made, derives no advantage from the recording thereof,
unless every writing, operating as a defeasance of the same, or
explanatory of its being desired to have the effect only of a mortgage,
or conditional deed, is also recorded therewith, and at the same time.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 32 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1985–2025 · leading case: Patmos Fifth Real Est. Inc. v. Mazl Bldg., LLC, 124 A.D.3d 422 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Patmos Fifth Real Est. Inc. v. Mazl Bldg., LLC, 124 A.D.3d 422 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015). · cites it 6× “(Patmos Fifth) and Patmos Westbury, LLC (Patmos Westbury) (together, Patmos) asserting, among other things, causes of action for violation of Real Property Law § 320 and unjust enrichment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.”
Loeuis v. Grushin, 126 A.D.3d 761 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015). · cites it 2× “The first cause of action, to quiet title pursuant to RPAPL article 15, is not time-barred, since the plaintiff was seized or possessed of the premises within 10 years before the commencement of the action and is in essence seeking a determination that the quitclaim deed which…”
Bouffard v. Befese, 111 A.D.3d 866 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013). · cites it 2× “Hawkes Crossing appeals from the court’s determination that the deed was null and void and the court’s dismissal of its cross claims.”
Southwell v. Middleton, 67 A.D.3d 666 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009). · cites it 3× “In the instant action, the plaintiff, alleging that the deed to Middleton actually was a mortgage because it was executed as security for a debt he owed to Middleton, sought, inter alia, a judgment declaring that deed to be a mortgage pursuant to Real Property Law § 320 (see…”
DeMaio v. Capozello, 74 A.D.3d 864 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010). · cites it 3× “only to the extent of directing the defendants Robert Capozello and Anna Capozello to hold the net proceeds from the sale of the subject property in trust for him, denied that branch of his motion which was for summary judgment on the fourth cause of action declaring that a…”
Vitvitsky v. Heim, 52 A.D.3d 1103 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008). · cites it 2× “However, the applicable statutory and case law of this state make it clear that the holding of a deed in escrow is not sufficient, in and of itself, to demonstrate that the deed will oper *1105 ate as an actual conveyance.”
Union Street Tower v. Richmond, 84 A.D.3d 784 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011). “The defendants’ first counterclaim alleged that, pursuant to Real Property Law § 320, the March 2003 deed should be considered a mortgage.”
Leonia Bank v. Kouri, 3 A.D.3d 213 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004). “though an absolute conveyance in terms, must be considered a mortgage; and the person for whose benefit such deed is made, derives no advantage from the recording thereof, unless every writing, operating as a defeasance of the same, or explanatory of its being desired to have…”
Shopsin v. Siben & Siben, Esqs., 268 A.D.2d 578 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000). “The plaintiff claims that the defendants did not perform adequate legal research, which resulted in their failure to raise the issue of whether a deed involved in the underlying litigation was intended to operate as a mortgage rather than as an absolute conveyance of the…”
Henley v. Foreclosure Sales, Inc., 39 A.D.3d 470 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007). “, 148 AD2d 484, 485 [1989]; see Real Property Law § 320; Maher v Alma Realty Co.”
Am. Lending Corp. v. Grigg, 2020 NY Slip Op 3211 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020). · cites it 2× “By order dated April 4, 2017, the Supreme Court, inter alia, granted the Romond defendants' motion for summary judgment, denied American Lending's cross motion, and denied as academic the Romond defendants' separate motion to amend their answer. In a judgment dated July 3, 2017,…”
Basile v. Erhal Holding Corp., 148 A.D.2d 484 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989). “The Supreme Court granted Erhal’s motion and declared that "the plaintiff no longer has any right of redemption of the subject property”. The plaintiff’s cross motion was denied.”
Show all 32 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.