Fusco v. Ciaramella

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Fusco v. Ciaramella

260 A.D. 925, 23 N.Y.S.2d 24, 1940 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5486

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

DecidedNovember 4, 1940

StatusPublished

This text of 260 A.D. 925 (Fusco v. Ciaramella) 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

Fusco v. Ciaramella, 260 A.D. 925, 23 N.Y.S.2d 24, 1940 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5486 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1940).

Pincite

Opinion

Action to foreclose a second mortgage on real property. Order reversed on the law, without costs, and motion granted, without costs, to the extent of striking out the answer of appellants Anthony Ciaramella and Felicia Ciaramella as sham, with leave to plaintiff, within ten days from the entry of the order hereon, to serve a reply to the counterclaims, alleging as a defense the same facts as were urged by him in [926]*926support of the motion. In our opinion the claimed defenses of plaintiff to the counterclaims should be pleaded and the issues then determined upon a trial, rather than summarily. Carswell, Johnston, Taylor and Close, JJ., concur; Lazansky, P. J., dissents and votes to affirm the order.

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

Action to foreclose a second mortgage on real property. Order reversed on the law, without costs, and motion granted, without costs, to the extent of striking out the answer of appellants Anthony Ciaramella and Felicia Ciaramella as sham, with leave to plaintiff, within ten days from the entry of the order hereon, to serve a reply to the counterclaims, alleging as a defense the same facts as were urged by him in [926]*926support of the motion. In our opinion the claimed defenses of plaintiff to the counterclaims should be pleaded and the issues then determined upon a trial, rather than summarily. Carswell, Johnston, Taylor and Close, JJ., concur; Lazansky, P. J., dissents and votes to affirm the order.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

260 A.D. 925, 23 N.Y.S.2d 24, 1940 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5486, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fusco-v-ciaramella-nyappdiv-1940.