Opinion
June 2, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Tompkins, J.).
The IAS Court correctly estopped defendant mortgagor from asserting the purported satisfaction issued by its lender, a failed bank, in the absence of proof that such satisfaction was approved by the lender's board of directors and had been a continuously official record of the lender, as required by 12 U.S.C. § 1823 (e) (see, Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Central Wine Liq., 187 A.D.2d 314, 315, citing Langley v. Federal Deposit Ins. Corp., 484 U.S. 86, and D'Oench, Duhme Co. v. Federal Deposit Ins. Corp., 315 U.S. 447; ICC Bridgeport Ltd. Partnership v. Primrose Dev. Corp., 221 A.D.2d 417). We would also note the absence of evidence of the filing of the satisfaction in accordance with the recording acts, and of canceled checks showing actual payment of the debt to the lender, a bank in which defendant guarantors, principals of the mortgagor, had heavily invested. Nor is there merit to defendants' claim of champerty (Judiciary Law § 489), where the mortgage loan had already fallen into default and been accelerated before its assignment to plaintiff (see, Limpar Realty Corp. v. Uswiss Realty Holding, 112 A.D.2d 834). We have considered defendants' remaining arguments and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Rosenberger, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.