Bendersky v. Simmons

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bendersky v. Simmons

272 A.D.2d 1024

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

DecidedOctober 20, 1947

StatusPublished

This text of 272 A.D.2d 1024 (Bendersky v. Simmons) 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

Bendersky v. Simmons, 272 A.D.2d 1024 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1947).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action under article 15 of the Real Property Law, to compel the determination of a claim to real property, judgment, entered in favor of defendant after trial by the court without a jury, reversed on the law and the facts and a new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. The deed to Benroth Realty Company, together with the testimony that the plaintiff and another individual did business under that name, may be sufficient to establish prima facie the existence of a competent grantee. (Partnership Law, § 12.) A new trial is granted in the interests of justice, inasmuch as it is claimed, but not provéd, that the named grantee was a- myth, not capable of holding title to real property. Lewis, P. J, Carswell, Johnston, Adel and Sneed, JJ., concur.

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

In an action under article 15 of the Real Property Law, to compel the determination of a claim to real property, judgment, entered in favor of defendant after trial by the court without a jury, reversed on the law and the facts and a new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. The deed to Benroth Realty Company, together with the testimony that the plaintiff and another individual did business under that name, may be sufficient to establish prima facie the existence of a competent grantee. (Partnership Law, § 12.) A new trial is granted in the interests of justice, inasmuch as it is claimed, but not provéd, that the named grantee was a- myth, not capable of holding title to real property. Lewis, P. J, Carswell, Johnston, Adel and Sneed, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

272 A.D.2d 1024, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bendersky-v-simmons-nyappdiv-1947.