Griffith v. Bergstol

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Griffith v. Bergstol

23 A.D.2d 686, 257 N.Y.S.2d 700, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4611

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

DecidedMarch 22, 1965

StatusPublished

This text of 23 A.D.2d 686 (Griffith v. Bergstol) 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

Griffith v. Bergstol, 23 A.D.2d 686, 257 N.Y.S.2d 700, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4611 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

-In an action pursuant to statute (Real Property Actions -and Proceedings Daw, art. 15), to remove a cloud on the title -of certain real property, the defendant appeals from an order -of the Supreme Count, Rockland County, entered July 17, 1964, which granted summary judgment dn favor of the plaintiff, struck -out the defendant’s answer, and directed that -a certain memorandum agreement for the sale of real property, recorded in the County -Clerk’s office, . be .vacated and cancelled of record. Order affirmed, with $10, costs and die[687]*687bursements. On this record, we find that the memorandum was not recordable under section 294 of the Real Property Law, because: (a) it was not acknowledged by the parties, and (lb) the signature and acknowledgment of the alleged subscribing witness were defective, erroneous and not in compliance with statute and ease law (see Real Property Law, §§ 292, 294; Matter of Keppler V. Nessler, 225 App. Div. 99; Matter of Shaw, 82 N. Y. S. 2d 298; Hollenback v. Fleming, 6 Hill 303; Earley v. St. Patrick’s Ghwch Soc., 81 Hun 369; Pritchard V. Palmer, 88 Hun 412; cf. People ex ret. Long Is. B. B. Co. v. Board of B. B. Comrs., 75 App. Div. 106; People ex rel. Erie B. B. Co. v. Board of B. B. Comrs., 105 App. Div. 273). We have not reached or decided any other question. Beldóck, P. J., Christ, Hill, Rabin and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

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

-In an action pursuant to statute (Real Property Actions -and Proceedings Daw, art. 15), to remove a cloud on the title -of certain real property, the defendant appeals from an order -of the Supreme Count, Rockland County, entered July 17, 1964, which granted summary judgment dn favor of the plaintiff, struck -out the defendant’s answer, and directed that -a certain memorandum agreement for the sale of real property, recorded in the County -Clerk’s office, . be .vacated and cancelled of record. Order affirmed, with $10, costs and die[687]*687bursements. On this record, we find that the memorandum was not recordable under section 294 of the Real Property Law, because: (a) it was not acknowledged by the parties, and (lb) the signature and acknowledgment of the alleged subscribing witness were defective, erroneous and not in compliance with statute and ease law (see Real Property Law, §§ 292, 294; Matter of Keppler V. Nessler, 225 App. Div. 99; Matter of Shaw, 82 N. Y. S. 2d 298; Hollenback v. Fleming, 6 Hill 303; Earley v. St. Patrick’s Ghwch Soc., 81 Hun 369; Pritchard V. Palmer, 88 Hun 412; cf. People ex ret. Long Is. B. B. Co. v. Board of B. B. Comrs., 75 App. Div. 106; People ex rel. Erie B. B. Co. v. Board of B. B. Comrs., 105 App. Div. 273). We have not reached or decided any other question. Beldóck, P. J., Christ, Hill, Rabin and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

23 A.D.2d 686, 257 N.Y.S.2d 700, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4611, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/griffith-v-bergstol-nyappdiv-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack