Bowery Savings Bank v. 185 Montague Street, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bowery Savings Bank v. 185 Montague Street, Inc.

267 A.D. 911, 47 N.Y.S.2d 140, 1944 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5474

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

DecidedMarch 20, 1944

StatusPublished

This text of 267 A.D. 911 (Bowery Savings Bank v. 185 Montague Street, 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

Bowery Savings Bank v. 185 Montague Street, Inc., 267 A.D. 911, 47 N.Y.S.2d 140, 1944 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5474 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1944).

Pincite

Opinion

Order granting plaintiff summary judgment as to the first and second causes of action set forth in its amended complaint, severing the action as to the balance thereof, striking out the answer of appellants as to the first and second causes of action and directing judgment in favor of plaintiff accordingly, unanimously affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. The appellants, by failing to deny the allegations contained in paragraphs 15, 16, 17 and 18, admitted that the vault in question was installed by the then owner of the building. Consequently the vault became a fixture and subject to the lien of the mortgage pursuant to the terms of the subsequent extension agreement. The appellants failed to raise any issue by the statement inconsistent with the facts thus admitted. (Civ. Prac. Act, § 261; Rodgers V. Clement, 162 N. Y. 422, 428.) Present — Close, P. J., Hagarty, Johnston, Adel and Lewis, JJ.

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

Order granting plaintiff summary judgment as to the first and second causes of action set forth in its amended complaint, severing the action as to the balance thereof, striking out the answer of appellants as to the first and second causes of action and directing judgment in favor of plaintiff accordingly, unanimously affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. The appellants, by failing to deny the allegations contained in paragraphs 15, 16, 17 and 18, admitted that the vault in question was installed by the then owner of the building. Consequently the vault became a fixture and subject to the lien of the mortgage pursuant to the terms of the subsequent extension agreement. The appellants failed to raise any issue by the statement inconsistent with the facts thus admitted. (Civ. Prac. Act, § 261; Rodgers V. Clement, 162 N. Y. 422, 428.) Present — Close, P. J., Hagarty, Johnston, Adel and Lewis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

267 A.D. 911, 47 N.Y.S.2d 140, 1944 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5474, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bowery-savings-bank-v-185-montague-street-inc-nyappdiv-1944.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack