Alexander v. Kelly

New York Supreme Court

Alexander v. Kelly

169 Misc. 521, 7 N.Y.S.2d 617, 1938 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2082

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedSeptember 13, 1938

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 169 Misc. 521 (Alexander v. Kelly) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Alexander v. Kelly, 169 Misc. 521, 7 N.Y.S.2d 617, 1938 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2082 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1938).

Pincite

Opinion

Smith (Peter P.), J.

The Court of Appeals in Holmes v. Gravenhorst (263 N. Y. 148), relied upon herein by the defendant, has stated that, in the absence of a contrary agreemént entered into between the parties, there is no authority for holding that a mortgagor in possession may be evicted from the mortgaged premises prior to a sale under a judgment of foreclosure and sale. In the instant case, however, it was expressly stipulated under the provisions of the extension agreement that the owner would pay a reasonable rental for the premises in the event of default. The latter covenant clearly contemplates the exception to the general rule enunciated in the Holmes case. Plaintiffs’ motion for a receiver of the rents granted. The order will be settled on notice. Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment has been withdrawn.

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

Smith (Peter P.), J.

The Court of Appeals in Holmes v. Gravenhorst (263 N. Y. 148), relied upon herein by the defendant, has stated that, in the absence of a contrary agreemént entered into between the parties, there is no authority for holding that a mortgagor in possession may be evicted from the mortgaged premises prior to a sale under a judgment of foreclosure and sale. In the instant case, however, it was expressly stipulated under the provisions of the extension agreement that the owner would pay a reasonable rental for the premises in the event of default. The latter covenant clearly contemplates the exception to the general rule enunciated in the Holmes case. Plaintiffs’ motion for a receiver of the rents granted. The order will be settled on notice. Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment has been withdrawn.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

169 Misc. 521, 7 N.Y.S.2d 617, 1938 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2082, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alexander-v-kelly-nysupct-1938.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack