Cone v. Niman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cone v. Niman

229 A.D. 801

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

DecidedMay 15, 1930

StatusPublished

This text of 229 A.D. 801 (Cone v. Niman) 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

Cone v. Niman, 229 A.D. 801 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1930).

Pincite

Opinion

Order reversed upon the law, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion for summary judgment granted, with ten dollars costs. The agreement alleged to have been made, by which the defendant should be released from his obligation under the [802]*802mortgages and notes upon delivery of a deed of the property in question, was entirely without consideration and there can be no estoppel because, before the foreclosure suit was instituted, the plaintiff repudiated and refused to recognize any such agreement and so advised the defendant. He, therefore, did not rely upon such alleged agreement and refrain from protecting his interest in the foreclosure suit. The defendant presented no proof that, by the purchase by plaintiff of the property at the foreclosure sale, the mortgage debt was extinguished by merger. Young, Rich, Kapper, Hagarty and Scudder, JJ., concur.

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

Order reversed upon the law, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion for summary judgment granted, with ten dollars costs. The agreement alleged to have been made, by which the defendant should be released from his obligation under the [802]*802mortgages and notes upon delivery of a deed of the property in question, was entirely without consideration and there can be no estoppel because, before the foreclosure suit was instituted, the plaintiff repudiated and refused to recognize any such agreement and so advised the defendant. He, therefore, did not rely upon such alleged agreement and refrain from protecting his interest in the foreclosure suit. The defendant presented no proof that, by the purchase by plaintiff of the property at the foreclosure sale, the mortgage debt was extinguished by merger. Young, Rich, Kapper, Hagarty and Scudder, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

229 A.D. 801, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cone-v-niman-nyappdiv-1930.