Broderick v. Alexander

New York Supreme Court

Broderick v. Alexander

153 Misc. 825, 275 N.Y.S. 278, 1934 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1784

DecidedAugust 16, 1934

StatusPublished

This text of 153 Misc. 825 (Broderick v. Alexander) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Broderick v. Alexander, 153 Misc. 825, 275 N.Y.S. 278, 1934 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1784 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1934).

Pincite

Opinion

Valente, J.

Motion to sever this action as against the defendant Heiman and for summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff Superintendent of Banks is granted. The defendant’s attorney, who makes the affidavit in opposition to the motion, furnishes no facts sufficient to raise a triable issue.' There have been previously brought to judgment two actions wherein the present plaintiff recovered judgment against stockholders of the Bank of United States (Broderick v. Adamson, 148 Misc. 353; Broderick v. Aaron, 151 id. 516). In these actions it has been established as a fact that reasonable value of the assets of the bank was insufficient to pay its creditors in full, and that such insufficiency existed and continued up to the present time. The sole ground of objection to the present motion is that a question of fact is raised as to the insolvency of the bank. No facts are presented upon this point. The validity and necessity of the assessment here [826]*826sought to be recovered has already been sustained by this court and no appeal has been taken from the judgments in question, although the time within which such an appeal must be taken has long since expired. The clerk is accordingly directed to enter judgment in favor of the plaintiff against the defendant Heiman in the sum of $1,250, with interest from August 8, 1932.

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

Valente, J.

Motion to sever this action as against the defendant Heiman and for summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff Superintendent of Banks is granted. The defendant’s attorney, who makes the affidavit in opposition to the motion, furnishes no facts sufficient to raise a triable issue.' There have been previously brought to judgment two actions wherein the present plaintiff recovered judgment against stockholders of the Bank of United States (Broderick v. Adamson, 148 Misc. 353; Broderick v. Aaron, 151 id. 516). In these actions it has been established as a fact that reasonable value of the assets of the bank was insufficient to pay its creditors in full, and that such insufficiency existed and continued up to the present time. The sole ground of objection to the present motion is that a question of fact is raised as to the insolvency of the bank. No facts are presented upon this point. The validity and necessity of the assessment here [826]*826sought to be recovered has already been sustained by this court and no appeal has been taken from the judgments in question, although the time within which such an appeal must be taken has long since expired. The clerk is accordingly directed to enter judgment in favor of the plaintiff against the defendant Heiman in the sum of $1,250, with interest from August 8, 1932.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

153 Misc. 825, 275 N.Y.S. 278, 1934 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1784, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/broderick-v-alexander-nysupct-1934.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack