Greenberg v. Schwartz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Greenberg v. Schwartz

273 A.D. 814, 76 N.Y.S.2d 95, 1948 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4761

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

DecidedJanuary 19, 1948

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 273 A.D. 814 (Greenberg v. Schwartz) 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

Greenberg v. Schwartz, 273 A.D. 814, 76 N.Y.S.2d 95, 1948 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4761 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1948).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to remove a cloud on title, defendant appeals from a judgment entered in favor of plaintiff. Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. The fact that plaintiff executed the mortgage which he now seeks to remove as a cloud on title does not deprive him of the right to maintain the action. (Stokes v. Houghton, 16 App. Div. 381.) Although this action was commenced eleven years after the execution and delivery of the mortgage, it is not barred by the Statute of Limitations. Where the action is brought by an owner in possession, the right is a continuing one which may be asserted at any time during the existence of the cloud. A different rule applies where the action is by an owner not in possession. (Ford v. Glendenin, 215 N. Y. 10.) Present — Carswell, Acting P. J., Johnston, Adel, Sneed and Wenzel, JJ.

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

In an action to remove a cloud on title, defendant appeals from a judgment entered in favor of plaintiff. Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. The fact that plaintiff executed the mortgage which he now seeks to remove as a cloud on title does not deprive him of the right to maintain the action. (Stokes v. Houghton, 16 App. Div. 381.) Although this action was commenced eleven years after the execution and delivery of the mortgage, it is not barred by the Statute of Limitations. Where the action is brought by an owner in possession, the right is a continuing one which may be asserted at any time during the existence of the cloud. A different rule applies where the action is by an owner not in possession. (Ford v. Glendenin, 215 N. Y. 10.) Present — Carswell, Acting P. J., Johnston, Adel, Sneed and Wenzel, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

273 A.D. 814, 76 N.Y.S.2d 95, 1948 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4761, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/greenberg-v-schwartz-nyappdiv-1948.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack