Hamla Corp. v. Ruffo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hamla Corp. v. Ruffo

26 A.D.2d 883, 274 N.Y.S.2d 395, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3217

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

DecidedOctober 27, 1966

StatusPublished

This text of 26 A.D.2d 883 (Hamla Corp. v. Ruffo) 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

Hamla Corp. v. Ruffo, 26 A.D.2d 883, 274 N.Y.S.2d 395, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3217 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

Memorandum by the Court. Appeal from an order denying plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment in an action to foreclose a mortgage on real property. The Special Term correctly held that a triable issue of fact was presented as to plaintiff’s good faith in acquiring the promissory note and mortgage. (Personal Property Law, § 403, subd. 3, par. [a].) The order should be modified to provide that defendants may serve an amended answer to allege absence of good faith, should they be so advised. (CPLR 3016, subd. [b]; 3018, subd. [b]; cf. CPLR 3025, subd. [c].) Order modified in accordance with this memorandum decision and, as so modified, affirmed, with costs to respondents. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds and Staley, Jr., JJ., concur; Taylor, J., not voting.

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

Memorandum by the Court. Appeal from an order denying plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment in an action to foreclose a mortgage on real property. The Special Term correctly held that a triable issue of fact was presented as to plaintiff’s good faith in acquiring the promissory note and mortgage. (Personal Property Law, § 403, subd. 3, par. [a].) The order should be modified to provide that defendants may serve an amended answer to allege absence of good faith, should they be so advised. (CPLR 3016, subd. [b]; 3018, subd. [b]; cf. CPLR 3025, subd. [c].) Order modified in accordance with this memorandum decision and, as so modified, affirmed, with costs to respondents. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds and Staley, Jr., JJ., concur; Taylor, J., not voting.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

26 A.D.2d 883, 274 N.Y.S.2d 395, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3217, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hamla-corp-v-ruffo-nyappdiv-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack