Emerle v. Varga

New York Supreme Court

Emerle v. Varga

145 Misc. 314, 260 N.Y.S. 70, 1932 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1550

DecidedSeptember 20, 1932

StatusPublished

This text of 145 Misc. 314 (Emerle v. Varga) 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

Emerle v. Varga, 145 Misc. 314, 260 N.Y.S. 70, 1932 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1550 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

Frankenthaler, J.

Triable issues are presented as to whether $6,000 was paid in consideration of the execution and delivery of the $6,000 mortgage and as to whether such payment was made in ignorance of the fact that the words “ in lieu thereof ” had been erroneously omitted in recording the mortgage for $14,500. If the $6,000 mortgage was accepted in good faith and for valuable consideration, without knowledge of the fact that the words “ in lieu thereof ” were contained in the original second mortgage, it would seem that the $6,000 mortgage would take precedence over the latter mortgage under the subordination clause. The motion is accordingly granted only to the extent of striking out the answers of the defendants George Varga and Helen Varga and striking out the names of “ Max Rosenfeld,” “ Margaret Marion,” and otherwise denied. Settle order.

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

Frankenthaler, J.

Triable issues are presented as to whether $6,000 was paid in consideration of the execution and delivery of the $6,000 mortgage and as to whether such payment was made in ignorance of the fact that the words “ in lieu thereof ” had been erroneously omitted in recording the mortgage for $14,500. If the $6,000 mortgage was accepted in good faith and for valuable consideration, without knowledge of the fact that the words “ in lieu thereof ” were contained in the original second mortgage, it would seem that the $6,000 mortgage would take precedence over the latter mortgage under the subordination clause. The motion is accordingly granted only to the extent of striking out the answers of the defendants George Varga and Helen Varga and striking out the names of “ Max Rosenfeld,” “ Margaret Marion,” and otherwise denied. Settle order.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

145 Misc. 314, 260 N.Y.S. 70, 1932 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1550, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/emerle-v-varga-nysupct-1932.