(dissenting).
I dissent.. The dissolution decree encompassed the entirety of the property and child support settlement of the financial affairs of Dennis and Cathy. The $13,000 lien given to Dennis on the realty and his child support obligation were necessarily interrelated. Dennis should not be allowed to sell off his lien and divorce that lien irom his child support obligation of $19,000.
Although I agree that generally equities and defenses between the assignor of the lien (Dennis) and the debtor of the lien (Cathy) arising after the lien assignment usually can*735not be interposed against the assignee, I believe that this is one of the “certain circumstances” under which “an assignee may be held ... to have impliedly assumed the contractual obligation of the assignor.” Nofziger Communications, Inc. v. Birks, 757 F.Supp. 80, 85 n. 9 (D.D.C.1991) (quoting Haarman v. Davis, 651 S.W.2d 134, 136 (Mo.1983)).
Under my view, “where the claim against the assignee is related to the transaction out of which the assignment arose and even if the claim accrues after notice of the assignment, a defendant may interpose it against the assignee to the extent of the offset.” Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Sofia, 147 Misc.2d 651, 559 N.Y.S.2d 109, 111-12 (N.Y.City Civ. Ct.1990) (citing Associates Capital Servs. Corp. v. Fairway Private Cars, Inc., 590 F.Supp. 10, 17 (E.D.N.Y.1982); James Talcott, Inc. v. Winco Sales Corp., 14 N.Y.2d 227, 233, 250 N.Y.S.2d 416, 420, 199 N.E.2d 499, 502 (1964)).
I believe that Cathy’s claim for delinquent child support against the Smiths as an offset against the $13,000 lien was related to the dissolution decree transaction out of which the $13,000 lien arose. Dennis should not be allowed to sell off the lien to avoid further child support payments and leave Cathy defenseless against the lien. Under these circumstances, I would imply an assignment of Dennis’s future child support obligations to the Smiths to the extent of the $13,000 lien. The Special Warranty Deed under which the Smiths took Dennis’s lien put them on notice that Cathy had an interest in the property. The Smiths purchased the lien at a considerable discount ($5,000) to account for potential liabilities arising out of Dennis’s divorce, among other things.
Despite these facts, the majority concludes that Cathy, and not the Smiths, loses in this case. I cannot accept that result. I therefore respectfully dissent.
LAVORATO, J., joins this dissent.