Albany Discount Corp. v. Mohawk National Bank of Schenectady

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Albany Discount Corp. v. Mohawk National Bank of Schenectady

30 A.D.2d 623, 290 N.Y.S.2d 576, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3877

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMay 27, 1968

StatusPublished

This text of 30 A.D.2d 623 (Albany Discount Corp. v. Mohawk National Bank of Schenectady) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Albany Discount Corp. v. Mohawk National Bank of Schenectady, 30 A.D.2d 623, 290 N.Y.S.2d 576, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3877 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Gabrielli, J.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court at Special Term, entered September 21, 1967, which denied appellant’s motion for summary judgment and granted respondent’s motion for similar relief. In view of the existence of factual questions, summary judgment should not have been granted to respondent. Because of the vagueness of the precise coverage intended by the financing statement of November 18, 1965 and, further since appellant and respondent each claims its alleged lien is superior to the other and there being no showing as to when the original lienor-purchaser surrendered or traded the mobile home in question to respondent’s mortgagor, it appears that these and other issues of fact have been created. Order modified, on the law and the facts, so as to deny respondent’s motion for summary judgment and, as so modified, affirmed, without costs. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds, Staley, Jr., and Gabrielli, JJ., concur in memorandum by Gabrielli, J. [54 Misc 2d 238.]

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Gabrielli, J.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court at Special Term, entered September 21, 1967, which denied appellant’s motion for summary judgment and granted respondent’s motion for similar relief. In view of the existence of factual questions, summary judgment should not have been granted to respondent. Because of the vagueness of the precise coverage intended by the financing statement of November 18, 1965 and, further since appellant and respondent each claims its alleged lien is superior to the other and there being no showing as to when the original lienor-purchaser surrendered or traded the mobile home in question to respondent’s mortgagor, it appears that these and other issues of fact have been created. Order modified, on the law and the facts, so as to deny respondent’s motion for summary judgment and, as so modified, affirmed, without costs. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds, Staley, Jr., and Gabrielli, JJ., concur in memorandum by Gabrielli, J. [54 Misc 2d 238.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

30 A.D.2d 623, 290 N.Y.S.2d 576, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3877, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/albany-discount-corp-v-mohawk-national-bank-of-schenectady-nyappdiv-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack