Bobrose Developments, Inc. v. Jacobson

251 A.D. 825, 296 N.Y.S. 520, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7845
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 7, 1937
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 251 A.D. 825 (Bobrose Developments, Inc. v. Jacobson) 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
Bobrose Developments, Inc. v. Jacobson, 251 A.D. 825, 296 N.Y.S. 520, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7845 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1937).

Opinion

In an action for specific performance of a contract in which appellant agreed to release certain lots from the lien of his mortgage on real estate upon payment of a prescribed amount of money to him by respondent: Order granting pendente lite respondent’s motion to direct appellant to execute and deliver to respondent a release of certain real property from the lien of appellant’s mortgage, and awarding to respondent other relief, reversed on the law, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion denied, with ten dollars costs. The order was made on notice, upon affidavits, before the time of the appellant to answer had expired. It awarded to the respondent thus summarily all the relief prayed for in the complaint. It determined summarily all disputed issues in favor of the respondent and, on motion, granted to the respondent pendente Hie the full relief to which it would be entitled, if at all, only after a trial of the merits. It was, therefore, clearly erroneous. (Brighton by the Sea, Inc., v. Rivkin, 201 App. Div. 726; Maloney v. Katzenstein, 135 id. 224; Moller v. Lincoln Safe Deposit Co., 174 id. 458, citing Bachman v. Harrington, 184 N. Y. 458.) The order cannot be justified under rule 113 of the Rules of Civil Practice, for that rule, where a motion is made by plaintiff, presupposes an answer by the defendant. In this action none had been served. The defendant’s time within which to serve it had not expired. The order likewise cannot be justified under the provisions of Real Property Law, section 333-b, which contemplates only a satisfaction of mortgage. Lazansky, P J , Carswell, Johnston, Taylor and Close, JJ., concur.

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

Related

City of Buffalo v. Mangan
49 A.D.2d 697 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1975)
Bookcase, Inc. v. Broderick
49 Misc. 2d 351 (New York Supreme Court, 1965)
Eldre Components, Inc. v. Kliman
47 Misc. 2d 463 (New York Supreme Court, 1965)
Begleiter v. Moreland
33 Misc. 2d 118 (New York Supreme Court, 1961)
Anderson v. Anderson
30 Misc. 2d 1034 (City of New York Municipal Court, 1961)
Miner v. City of Yonkers
14 Misc. 2d 535 (New York Supreme Court, 1958)
Orkstein v. 1440 Associates, Inc.
11 Misc. 2d 793 (New York Supreme Court, 1958)
Stern v. Newton
180 Misc. 241 (New York Supreme Court, 1943)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
251 A.D. 825, 296 N.Y.S. 520, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7845, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bobrose-developments-inc-v-jacobson-nyappdiv-1937.