Ellis Chingos Construction Corp. v. Carlton Properties, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ellis Chingos Construction Corp. v. Carlton Properties, Inc.

7 A.D.2d 1020, 185 N.Y.S.2d 238, 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9491

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

DecidedMarch 23, 1959

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 7 A.D.2d 1020 (Ellis Chingos Construction Corp. v. Carlton Properties, 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

Ellis Chingos Construction Corp. v. Carlton Properties, Inc., 7 A.D.2d 1020, 185 N.Y.S.2d 238, 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9491 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1959).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to foreclose a mechanic’s lien, the appeal, as limited by appellant’s brief, is from so much of an order as granted the respondent’s motion for judgment on the pleadings dismissing the complaint as to it (Rules Civ. Prac., rule 112) upon the grounds (1) that respondent was not a party to the improvement contract made by its tenants and the appellant for the construction of a diner, (2) that respondent [1021]*1021was divested of ownership of the premises prior to the date on which appellant completed its work, filed its mechanic’s lien or commenced this action, and (3) that appellant was not a third-party beneficiary of any contractual undertaking made by the respondent either in its deed of conveyance of the premises or in the lease to its tenants. Order insofar as appealed from unanimously affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. No opinion. Present — Wenzel, Acting P. J., Beldock, Murphy, Hallinan and Kleinfeld, JJ.

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

In an action to foreclose a mechanic’s lien, the appeal, as limited by appellant’s brief, is from so much of an order as granted the respondent’s motion for judgment on the pleadings dismissing the complaint as to it (Rules Civ. Prac., rule 112) upon the grounds (1) that respondent was not a party to the improvement contract made by its tenants and the appellant for the construction of a diner, (2) that respondent [1021]*1021was divested of ownership of the premises prior to the date on which appellant completed its work, filed its mechanic’s lien or commenced this action, and (3) that appellant was not a third-party beneficiary of any contractual undertaking made by the respondent either in its deed of conveyance of the premises or in the lease to its tenants. Order insofar as appealed from unanimously affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. No opinion. Present — Wenzel, Acting P. J., Beldock, Murphy, Hallinan and Kleinfeld, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

7 A.D.2d 1020, 185 N.Y.S.2d 238, 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9491, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ellis-chingos-construction-corp-v-carlton-properties-inc-nyappdiv-1959.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack