In a January 25, 2011 decision by Justice Hinds-Radix, the Court denied non-party Geneva Alston’s motion to cancel a notice of pendency recorded by plaintiff, and to permanently discharge a mortgage recorded against the real property. The case arises out of defendant McNeil’s purported transfer of a residential parcel of property located in Brooklyn. Upon the death of the owner, Mattie Dickens, McNeil conveyed the property as “Executor” of Dickens to McNeil herself. McNeil later borrowed against the property, taking out a series of loans with mortgages. Ultimately, Citimortgage’s predecessor ABN AMRO issued a loan in the amount of $340,000 to McNeil and, in turn, received a mortgage on the premises. Six months later, plaintiff issued a satisfaction of the mortgage, apparently in error.
In the interim, non-party Alston brought an action against McNeil to vacate the deed she issued to herself. Citimortgage brought the instant action to vacate the satisfaction of mortgage, and to restore its mortgage lien position. Citimortgage also filed a notice of pendency. Alston sought to vacate the notice of pendency in the instant action and to bar Citimortgage from enforceing the mortgage lien.
The denied Alston’s motion, concluding that Citimortgage’s complaint is an action affecting real estate, and that no one innocently relied upon Citimortgage’s mistake in issuing a satisfaction. The ultimate relief sought by plaintiff—cancellation of the satisfaction and resuscitation of its mortgage lien of record—affects title to the real estate. Therefore, the notice of pendency was properly filed.
Citimortgage, Inc. v. McNeil, Sup Ct, tKings County, January 25, 2011, Hinds-Radix, J, Index No. 14658/08.