In Weinreb v. M & S Bagels (44 Misc 2d 537 [Sup Ct, Kings County 1964], affd 23 A.D.2d 884 [2d Dept 1965]) a chattel mortgage contained the usual clause requiring the mortgagor to keep the chattels insured against loss and damage by fire for the benefit of the mortgagee. However, the mortgagor obtained a policy which did not name the mortgagee as an insured (id.). A fire occurred on the premises and the chattels were destroyed or damaged (id.). On the following day, the mortgagee obtained an endorsement making the loss payable to it as first mortgagee (id.). Before payments were made under the insurance policy, several judgment creditors of the mortgagor served subpoenas on the insurer, claiming that they had obtained liens to the extent of their judgments on the insurance proceeds superior to the claim of the mortgagee (id. at 539). There, the court held that the mortgagee was entitled to the insurance proceeds under the policy, even though the policy did not contain a mortgagee clause: "The mortgage contained a clause requiring the mortgagor to carry fire insurance for the benefit of the mortgagee. In fact insurance was carried but the usual mortgage clause was not included in the policy. It would not have cost anything additional to include such clause and I deem its absence an inadvertent oversight. The owner having been obligated to have a provision inserted in the policy in favor of the mortgagee, equity may treat the policy as having contained such a provision. . . . Had there been no provision in the mortgage for insurance in favor of the mortgagee, the result might well be different since the owner could not make a preferential assignment of the proceeds of the fire loss to one creditor. Of course, as between the owner and the mortgagee under a mortgage in which [the mortgagor] covenants to keep the property insured for the benefit of the mortgagee the latter has an equitable lien upon the proceeds of insurance even though the policy contains no mortgage clause" (id. at 539-540 ).