F.L. Mitchell Corp. v. Sheets

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

F.L. Mitchell Corp. v. Sheets

172 A.D.2d 1050, 569 N.Y.S.2d 304, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6316

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

DecidedApril 26, 1991

StatusPublished

This text of 172 A.D.2d 1050 (F.L. Mitchell Corp. v. Sheets) 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

F.L. Mitchell Corp. v. Sheets, 172 A.D.2d 1050, 569 N.Y.S.2d 304, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6316 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

? Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly rejected plaintiffs argument that Marine Midland Bank’s priority interest should be subordinated to plaintiffs subsequently-filed mechanic’s lien because Marine Midland Bank violated section 22 of the Lien Law. The borrower’s affidavit accompanying the first building loan contract explicitly provides that the net sum available to the borrower for the improvement is consequently, plaintiff was apprised that no funds from the proceeds of the first loan were available for improvements to the property located at 2620 W. Henrietta Rd., Rochester (see, Nanuet Natl. Bank v Eckerson Terrace, 47 NY2d 243, 247). We have examined plaintiffs remaining contention and find it to be without merit. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Rosenbloom, J.—Dismiss Affirmative Defenses.) Present—Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Denman, Pine and Lawton, JJ.

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

? Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly rejected plaintiffs argument that Marine Midland Bank’s priority interest should be subordinated to plaintiffs subsequently-filed mechanic’s lien because Marine Midland Bank violated section 22 of the Lien Law. The borrower’s affidavit accompanying the first building loan contract explicitly provides that the net sum available to the borrower for the improvement is consequently, plaintiff was apprised that no funds from the proceeds of the first loan were available for improvements to the property located at 2620 W. Henrietta Rd., Rochester (see, Nanuet Natl. Bank v Eckerson Terrace, 47 NY2d 243, 247). We have examined plaintiffs remaining contention and find it to be without merit. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Rosenbloom, J.—Dismiss Affirmative Defenses.) Present—Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Denman, Pine and Lawton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

172 A.D.2d 1050, 569 N.Y.S.2d 304, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6316, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fl-mitchell-corp-v-sheets-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack