Goldman v. Ginsberg

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Goldman v. Ginsberg

247 A.D. 797

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

DecidedMarch 15, 1936

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 247 A.D. 797 (Goldman v. Ginsberg) 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

Goldman v. Ginsberg, 247 A.D. 797 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

Action on a bond which was secured by a mortgage. The defense, under the provisions of section 1083-b of the Civil Practice Act, was that the fair [798]*798and reasonable market value of the mortgaged property was in excess of the amount of the bond sued on. On the trial the fair market value of the property was fixed by the court, and judgment for the balance was rendered for plaintiff. On cross-appeals, judgment unanimously affirmed, without costs. The plaintiff, having elected to sue on the bond for default of interest during the emergency period, was entitled only to a limited remedy. The obligation on the bond has not been wiped out, for when the emergency period ends he may recover the further amount due on the bond (Civ. Prac. Act, § 1083-b). The statute merely suspends his rights during the emergency period. Present — Young, Hagarty, Davis, Johnston and Adel, JJ.

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

Action on a bond which was secured by a mortgage. The defense, under the provisions of section 1083-b of the Civil Practice Act, was that the fair [798]*798and reasonable market value of the mortgaged property was in excess of the amount of the bond sued on. On the trial the fair market value of the property was fixed by the court, and judgment for the balance was rendered for plaintiff. On cross-appeals, judgment unanimously affirmed, without costs. The plaintiff, having elected to sue on the bond for default of interest during the emergency period, was entitled only to a limited remedy. The obligation on the bond has not been wiped out, for when the emergency period ends he may recover the further amount due on the bond (Civ. Prac. Act, § 1083-b). The statute merely suspends his rights during the emergency period. Present — Young, Hagarty, Davis, Johnston and Adel, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

247 A.D. 797, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goldman-v-ginsberg-nyappdiv-1936.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack