In re 165 Broadway Building, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re 165 Broadway Building, Inc.

7 A.D.2d 897, 182 N.Y.S.2d 89, 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10086

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

DecidedFebruary 3, 1959

StatusPublished

This text of 7 A.D.2d 897 (In re 165 Broadway Building, Inc.) 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

In re 165 Broadway Building, Inc., 7 A.D.2d 897, 182 N.Y.S.2d 89, 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10086 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1959).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the petitioner-respondent on the facts and on the law and in the exercise of discretion. It would have been proper for the Referee to receive expert testimony, if offered, as to (1) the highest price obtainable at a foreclosure sale, and (2) the maximum price obtainable for the premises in its present condition, on an all cash sale, in the open market, during the period required to process a foreclosure. Such proof was not essentially required from the appraiser appointed by the court but, if available, could have been tendered by the trustee or any other interested party. Concur—Breitel, J. P., Rabin, M. M. Frank, Valente and McNally, JJ.

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

Order unanimously affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the petitioner-respondent on the facts and on the law and in the exercise of discretion. It would have been proper for the Referee to receive expert testimony, if offered, as to (1) the highest price obtainable at a foreclosure sale, and (2) the maximum price obtainable for the premises in its present condition, on an all cash sale, in the open market, during the period required to process a foreclosure. Such proof was not essentially required from the appraiser appointed by the court but, if available, could have been tendered by the trustee or any other interested party. Concur—Breitel, J. P., Rabin, M. M. Frank, Valente and McNally, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

7 A.D.2d 897, 182 N.Y.S.2d 89, 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10086, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-165-broadway-building-inc-nyappdiv-1959.