Hoard v. Luther

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hoard v. Luther

257 A.D. 1027, 13 N.Y.S.2d 748, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8948

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Hoard v. Luther. Read the opinion of the Court — 251 A.D. 692 →

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 28, 1939·Published

Opinion

Judgment affirmed, without .costs of this appeal to any party. Memorandum: We are of the opinion — in this proceeding under section 1083-a of the Civil Practice Act to determine the amount, if any, of a deficiency judgment to which plaintiff is entitled — that the evidence, as to the cost of construction of an adjoining apartment house and the amounts of gross and net rents therefrom received, does not fall within any exception to the general rule against the admissibility of such proof on direct examination. We, therefore, disregard this evidence and determine that, upon the remaining proofs in the record, the fair and reasonable market value of the mortgaged premises, at the time of the foreclosure sale, was $40,000. All concur. (The judgment awards plaintiff a deficiency judgment in a mortgage foreclosure action.) Present — Sears, P. J., Crosby, Cunningham, Taylor and Dowling, JJ. [See 251 App. Div. 692.]

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

Judgment affirmed, without .costs of this appeal to any party. Memorandum: We are of the opinion — in this proceeding under section 1083-a of the Civil Practice Act to determine the amount, if any, of a deficiency judgment to which plaintiff is entitled — that the evidence, as to the cost of construction of an adjoining apartment house and the amounts of gross and net rents therefrom received, does not fall within any exception to the general rule against the admissibility of such proof on direct examination. We, therefore, disregard this evidence and determine that, upon the remaining proofs in the record, the fair and reasonable market value of the mortgaged premises, at the time of the foreclosure sale, was $40,000. All concur. (The judgment awards plaintiff a deficiency judgment in a mortgage foreclosure action.) Present — Sears, P. J., Crosby, Cunningham, Taylor and Dowling, JJ. [See 251 App. Div. 692.]

Hoard v. Luther, 257 A.D. 1027, 13 N.Y.S.2d 748, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8948 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1939).

Pincite

257 A.D. 1027 (Hoard v. Luther) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related