East River Savings Bank v. 671 Prospect Avenue Holding Corp.

New York Court of Appeals

East River Savings Bank v. 671 Prospect Avenue Holding Corp.

20 N.E.2d 780, 280 N.Y. 342, 1939 N.Y. LEXIS 1323

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 21, 1939

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 20 N.E.2d 780 (East River Savings Bank v. 671 Prospect Avenue Holding Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

East River Savings Bank v. 671 Prospect Avenue Holding Corp., 20 N.E.2d 780, 280 N.Y. 342, 1939 N.Y. LEXIS 1323 (N.Y. 1939).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

It was error to strike out the answer of appellant and to grant summary judgment for plaintiff directing, among other things, foreclosure and sale of the personal property referred to in and asserted by plaintiff to be covered by the provisions of the real estate mortgage which this action was brought to foreclose. It appears from the pleadings and affidavits submitted on the motion that such property was not as matter of law so attached to and made a part of the building as to constitute fixtures. The intent that it should not be included within the coverage of the real estate mortgage could fairly be inferred by the fact that the contract of sale specifically provided for the execution and delivery of a separate chattel mortgage instrument covering that property as additional security for the payment of part of the purchase price of the realty, which chattel mortgage was, in fact, executed, delivered to and accepted by the plaintiff at the same time as the execution and delivery of the mortgage covering the real estate. (Manufacturers Trust Co. v. Peck-Schwartz Realty Corp., 277 N. Y. 283.)

The order of the Appellate Division and the judgment of the Special Term should be reversed, with costs to the appellant in all courts, and the motion denied, with ten dollars costs. (See 280 N. Y. 814.)

Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs, Loughran and Rippey, JJ., concur; Finch, J., taking no part.

Ordered accordingly.

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

Per Curiam.

It was error to strike out the answer of appellant and to grant summary judgment for plaintiff directing, among other things, foreclosure and sale of the personal property referred to in and asserted by plaintiff to be covered by the provisions of the real estate mortgage which this action was brought to foreclose. It appears from the pleadings and affidavits submitted on the motion that such property was not as matter of law so attached to and made a part of the building as to constitute fixtures. The intent that it should not be included within the coverage of the real estate mortgage could fairly be inferred by the fact that the contract of sale specifically provided for the execution and delivery of a separate chattel mortgage instrument covering that property as additional security for the payment of part of the purchase price of the realty, which chattel mortgage was, in fact, executed, delivered to and accepted by the plaintiff at the same time as the execution and delivery of the mortgage covering the real estate. (Manufacturers Trust Co. v. Peck-Schwartz Realty Corp., 277 N. Y. 283.)

The order of the Appellate Division and the judgment of the Special Term should be reversed, with costs to the appellant in all courts, and the motion denied, with ten dollars costs. (See 280 N. Y. 814.)

Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs, Loughran and Rippey, JJ., concur; Finch, J., taking no part.

Ordered accordingly.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

20 N.E.2d 780, 280 N.Y. 342, 1939 N.Y. LEXIS 1323, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/east-river-savings-bank-v-671-prospect-avenue-holding-corp-ny-1939.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack