Barmen v. Barmen Contracting Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Barmen v. Barmen Contracting Co.

48 A.D.2d 889, 372 N.Y.S.2d 989, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10148

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

DecidedJune 23, 1975

StatusPublished

This text of 48 A.D.2d 889 (Barmen v. Barmen Contracting Co.) 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

Barmen v. Barmen Contracting Co., 48 A.D.2d 889, 372 N.Y.S.2d 989, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10148 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

In a mortgage foreclosure proceeding, Chaim Farkas, the receiver of the mortgagor, appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County, dated July 30, 1974, which denied his motion to vacate a prior judgment of foreclosure and sale and to dismiss the complaint. On the argument of this appeal, respondents renewed their prior motion for leave to file certain exhibits nunc pro tunc, asserting that the said exhibits had been before Special Term, which [890]*890assertion was not disputed by counsel for appellant. Motion granted and order affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements. No opinion. Rabin, Acting P. J., Martuscello, Christ, Munder and Shapiro, JJ., concur.

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

In a mortgage foreclosure proceeding, Chaim Farkas, the receiver of the mortgagor, appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County, dated July 30, 1974, which denied his motion to vacate a prior judgment of foreclosure and sale and to dismiss the complaint. On the argument of this appeal, respondents renewed their prior motion for leave to file certain exhibits nunc pro tunc, asserting that the said exhibits had been before Special Term, which [890]*890assertion was not disputed by counsel for appellant. Motion granted and order affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements. No opinion. Rabin, Acting P. J., Martuscello, Christ, Munder and Shapiro, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

48 A.D.2d 889, 372 N.Y.S.2d 989, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10148, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barmen-v-barmen-contracting-co-nyappdiv-1975.