Granick v. Mobach.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Granick v. Mobach.

13 A.D.2d 534, 213 N.Y.S.2d 240, 1961 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12010

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

DecidedMarch 20, 1961

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 13 A.D.2d 534 (Granick v. Mobach.) 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

Granick v. Mobach., 13 A.D.2d 534, 213 N.Y.S.2d 240, 1961 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12010 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1961).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action by an assignee to foreclose a purchase-money mortgage on real property, in which defendants, the mortgagors, interposed a defense and counterclaim based on the assignor’s breach of an agreement, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated November 2, 1960, which granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment striking out their answer, pursuant to rule 113 of the Rules of Civil Practice. Order reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and motion denied. In our opinion, the answering affidavits raise a triable issue. The counterclaim is properly interposed and the damages, if any, established on the trial may be offset to the amount of the plaintiff’s demand (Civ. Prac. Act, §§ 266, 267). Plaintiff took the assignment of the bond and mortgage subject to all defenses and counterclaims which defendants had against the assignor (Liebowitz v. Arrow Roofing Co., 259 N. Y. 391; American Guild v. Damon, 186 N. Y. 360), and, consequently, as against defendants the plaintiff acquired thereby no rights greater than those of his assignor (Stevenson Brewing Co. v. Iba, 155 N. Y. 224). Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Ughetta, Christ and Brennan, JJ., concur.

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

In an action by an assignee to foreclose a purchase-money mortgage on real property, in which defendants, the mortgagors, interposed a defense and counterclaim based on the assignor’s breach of an agreement, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated November 2, 1960, which granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment striking out their answer, pursuant to rule 113 of the Rules of Civil Practice. Order reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and motion denied. In our opinion, the answering affidavits raise a triable issue. The counterclaim is properly interposed and the damages, if any, established on the trial may be offset to the amount of the plaintiff’s demand (Civ. Prac. Act, §§ 266, 267). Plaintiff took the assignment of the bond and mortgage subject to all defenses and counterclaims which defendants had against the assignor (Liebowitz v. Arrow Roofing Co., 259 N. Y. 391; American Guild v. Damon, 186 N. Y. 360), and, consequently, as against defendants the plaintiff acquired thereby no rights greater than those of his assignor (Stevenson Brewing Co. v. Iba, 155 N. Y. 224). Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Ughetta, Christ and Brennan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

13 A.D.2d 534, 213 N.Y.S.2d 240, 1961 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12010, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/granick-v-mobach-nyappdiv-1961.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack