Cuoco v. Classon Building Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cuoco v. Classon Building Co.

166 A.D. 934, 151 N.Y.S. 1111, 1915 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6773

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

DecidedJanuary 15, 1915

StatusPublished

This text of 166 A.D. 934 (Cuoco v. Classon Building Co.) 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

Cuoco v. Classon Building Co., 166 A.D. 934, 151 N.Y.S. 1111, 1915 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6773 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1915).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment modified by striking therefrom the word “fraudulent,” and as so modified affirmed, with costs. The ninth and tenth findings of fact are reversed, and it is found: Ninth. That in the year 1911 the defendant James C. DanzEo procured plaintiffs to sign a deed under seal purporting to convey the premises aforementioned to the Classon Building Company, which deed was dated July 15, 1911, and recorded in the office of the register of the county of Kings in liber 3317 of Conveyances, page 100, on August 28,1911, in section 7, block 1896. Tenth. That the defendant Danzilo understood that the deed was in the nature of a mortgage, and procured it to effectuate the payment of interest on the mortgages and taxes; but he did not cause plaintiffs to understand his purpose, and the minds of the parties did not meet in the execution and delivery of the deed. The first conclusion of law is modified so as to read asfollows: “ That the deedmentioned in finding ninth is void.” Mo opinion. Jenks, P. J., Burr, Thomas, Rich and Putnam, JJ., concurred. Order to be Settled before Mr. Justice Thomas.

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

Judgment modified by striking therefrom the word “fraudulent,” and as so modified affirmed, with costs. The ninth and tenth findings of fact are reversed, and it is found: Ninth. That in the year 1911 the defendant James C. DanzEo procured plaintiffs to sign a deed under seal purporting to convey the premises aforementioned to the Classon Building Company, which deed was dated July 15, 1911, and recorded in the office of the register of the county of Kings in liber 3317 of Conveyances, page 100, on August 28,1911, in section 7, block 1896. Tenth. That the defendant Danzilo understood that the deed was in the nature of a mortgage, and procured it to effectuate the payment of interest on the mortgages and taxes; but he did not cause plaintiffs to understand his purpose, and the minds of the parties did not meet in the execution and delivery of the deed. The first conclusion of law is modified so as to read asfollows: “ That the deedmentioned in finding ninth is void.” Mo opinion. Jenks, P. J., Burr, Thomas, Rich and Putnam, JJ., concurred. Order to be Settled before Mr. Justice Thomas.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

166 A.D. 934, 151 N.Y.S. 1111, 1915 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6773, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cuoco-v-classon-building-co-nyappdiv-1915.