Goodman v. Cranada Towers

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Goodman v. Cranada Towers

235 A.D. 794

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

DecidedApril 15, 1932

StatusPublished

This text of 235 A.D. 794 (Goodman v. Cranada Towers) 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

Goodman v. Cranada Towers, 235 A.D. 794 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment reversed on the law and the facts and complaint dismissed as to these appellants, with costs, unless respondent stipulate, within ten days, to sell the property described in the complaint in two parcels, as described in the respective mortgages to which the defendants, appellants,’ meehame’s liens were subject prior to the consolidation agreement: one for $30,000, upon which there was then due the sum of $18,756, and the other for $6,000; in wMeh event the judgment is unanimously affirmed, without costs. The rights of the appellants, mechanics’ lienors, were not affected by the consolidation of the mortgages upon different parcels of the plot of land described in the complaint subsequent to the filing of their liens. As to the amount due upon the respective mortgages at the time of the consolidation, the record discloses that that issue was tried, and we are of opinion that the finding of fact is supported by the evidence. Lazansky, P. J., Young, Kapper, Hagarty and Carswell, JJ., concur. Settle order on notice.

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

Judgment reversed on the law and the facts and complaint dismissed as to these appellants, with costs, unless respondent stipulate, within ten days, to sell the property described in the complaint in two parcels, as described in the respective mortgages to which the defendants, appellants,’ meehame’s liens were subject prior to the consolidation agreement: one for $30,000, upon which there was then due the sum of $18,756, and the other for $6,000; in wMeh event the judgment is unanimously affirmed, without costs. The rights of the appellants, mechanics’ lienors, were not affected by the consolidation of the mortgages upon different parcels of the plot of land described in the complaint subsequent to the filing of their liens. As to the amount due upon the respective mortgages at the time of the consolidation, the record discloses that that issue was tried, and we are of opinion that the finding of fact is supported by the evidence. Lazansky, P. J., Young, Kapper, Hagarty and Carswell, JJ., concur. Settle order on notice.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

235 A.D. 794, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goodman-v-cranada-towers-nyappdiv-1932.