Bankers Trust Co. v. Harry Rosenwasser, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bankers Trust Co. v. Harry Rosenwasser, Inc.

257 A.D. 822, 11 N.Y.S.2d 823, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8039

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

DecidedMay 1, 1939

StatusPublished

This text of 257 A.D. 822 (Bankers Trust Co. v. Harry Rosenwasser, Inc.) 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

Bankers Trust Co. v. Harry Rosenwasser, Inc., 257 A.D. 822, 11 N.Y.S.2d 823, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8039 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1939).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action brought to foreclose a mortgage, in [823]*823which, the appellant mortgagor pleaded an agreement by the plaintiff to withhold foreclosure in consideration of an assignment of rents, resettled order granting plaintiff’s motion to strike out the answer of the appellant and for summary judgment affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Under the agreement pleaded in the answer, the plaintiff promised to withhold its action for a period of one year only. It is not denied that the subsequent oral agreement to forbear for a further period was breached by defendant through failure to continue the monthly payments. Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell, Adel and Close, JJ., concur.

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

In an action brought to foreclose a mortgage, in [823]*823which, the appellant mortgagor pleaded an agreement by the plaintiff to withhold foreclosure in consideration of an assignment of rents, resettled order granting plaintiff’s motion to strike out the answer of the appellant and for summary judgment affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Under the agreement pleaded in the answer, the plaintiff promised to withhold its action for a period of one year only. It is not denied that the subsequent oral agreement to forbear for a further period was breached by defendant through failure to continue the monthly payments. Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell, Adel and Close, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

257 A.D. 822, 11 N.Y.S.2d 823, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8039, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bankers-trust-co-v-harry-rosenwasser-inc-nyappdiv-1939.