Interboro Associates, Inc. v. Zeitler

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Interboro Associates, Inc. v. Zeitler

248 A.D. 737

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

DecidedJune 15, 1936

StatusPublished

This text of 248 A.D. 737 (Interboro Associates, Inc. v. Zeitler) 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

Interboro Associates, Inc. v. Zeitler, 248 A.D. 737 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action for the foreclosure of a mortgage on real property, order in so far as it imposes, as a condition to the granting of the motion to discontinue the action, cancel the lis pendens and vacate the judgment of foreclosure, that plaintiff pay the referee to sell the sum of fifty dollars for his services, modified by reducing the amount so payable to the sum of twenty-five dollars, and as so modified affirmed, without costs. We are of opinion that in the situation disclosed in the record, in which the sum bid by plaintiff was applied upon his demand as fixed by the judgment, without being paid to the referee, the latter was entitled to the sum of twenty-five dollars. (Civ. Prac. Act, § 1546.) Lazansky, P. J., Carswell, Davis, Adel and Taylor, JJ., concur.

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

In an action for the foreclosure of a mortgage on real property, order in so far as it imposes, as a condition to the granting of the motion to discontinue the action, cancel the lis pendens and vacate the judgment of foreclosure, that plaintiff pay the referee to sell the sum of fifty dollars for his services, modified by reducing the amount so payable to the sum of twenty-five dollars, and as so modified affirmed, without costs. We are of opinion that in the situation disclosed in the record, in which the sum bid by plaintiff was applied upon his demand as fixed by the judgment, without being paid to the referee, the latter was entitled to the sum of twenty-five dollars. (Civ. Prac. Act, § 1546.) Lazansky, P. J., Carswell, Davis, Adel and Taylor, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

248 A.D. 737, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/interboro-associates-inc-v-zeitler-nyappdiv-1936.