Goldman v. Ginsberg

247 A.D. 797
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 15, 1936·Published·Cited by 1 cases

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] and 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

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

247 A.D. 797 (Goldman v. Ginsberg) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Union Trust Co. v. Simpson
160 Misc. 836 (New York Supreme Court, 1936)