Interboro Operating Corp. v. Commonwealth Security & Mortgage Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Interboro Operating Corp. v. Commonwealth Security & Mortgage Corp.

243 A.D. 626

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

DecidedJanuary 15, 1935

StatusPublished

This text of 243 A.D. 626 (Interboro Operating Corp. v. Commonwealth Security & Mortgage Corp.) 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 Operating Corp. v. Commonwealth Security & Mortgage Corp., 243 A.D. 626 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1935).

Pincite

Opinion

Order denying defendant’s motion to cancel the plaintiff’s notice of pendency of action reversed on the law, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion granted, with ten dollars costs. The plaintiff, having rescinded and repudiated the contract on the ground of fraud at its inception, cannot have a lien on the premises for its down payment and expenses. (Elterman v. Hyman, 192 N. Y. 113; Davis v. Rosenzweig Realty Co., Id. 128, 133; Goodman v. Schwab, 136 App. Div. 583.) Stay granted for thirty days pending application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals. Lazansky, P. J., Young, Seudder and Tompkins, JJ., concur; Davis, J., concurs as to the granting of a stay, but dissents and votes to affirm the order from which the appeal is taken.

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

Order denying defendant’s motion to cancel the plaintiff’s notice of pendency of action reversed on the law, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion granted, with ten dollars costs. The plaintiff, having rescinded and repudiated the contract on the ground of fraud at its inception, cannot have a lien on the premises for its down payment and expenses. (Elterman v. Hyman, 192 N. Y. 113; Davis v. Rosenzweig Realty Co., Id. 128, 133; Goodman v. Schwab, 136 App. Div. 583.) Stay granted for thirty days pending application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals. Lazansky, P. J., Young, Seudder and Tompkins, JJ., concur; Davis, J., concurs as to the granting of a stay, but dissents and votes to affirm the order from which the appeal is taken.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

243 A.D. 626, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/interboro-operating-corp-v-commonwealth-security-mortgage-corp-nyappdiv-1935.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack