Kelmenson v. Boulevard Construction Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kelmenson v. Boulevard Construction Corp.

232 A.D. 847

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 15, 1931·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Order denying motion to strike out the separate and distinct defenses contained in defendant’s answer and to grant judgment for plaintiff on the pleadings reversed upon the law and the facts, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, motion granted, with ten dollars costs, and judgment directed for plaintiff, with costs. “ The mortgage clause is the standard provided by Schedule M of section 258 of the Real Property Law; * and as construed by subdivision 2 of section 254 of that law,† the default in payment of an installment of principal on the day whereon it is made payable accelerates the due date of the [848] entire principal of the mortgage. (Besas v. Slobodoff, 129 Misc. 205.)” (More Realty Corp. v. Mootchnick, ante, p. 705, decided by this court January 29, 1931.) Appeal from order denying motion for reargument dismissed, as such an order is not appealable. (Young v. Corning, 183 App. Div. 923.) Lazansky, P. J., Kapper, Carswell, Seudder and Davis, JJ., concur.

Footnotes

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

Order denying motion to strike out the separate and distinct defenses contained in defendant’s answer and to grant judgment for plaintiff on the pleadings reversed upon the law and the facts, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, motion granted, with ten dollars costs, and judgment directed for plaintiff, with costs. “ The mortgage clause is the standard provided by Schedule M of section 258 of the Real Property Law; * and as construed by subdivision 2 of section 254 of that law,† the default in payment of an installment of principal on the day whereon it is made payable accelerates the due date of the [848] entire principal of the mortgage. (Besas v. Slobodoff, 129 Misc. 205.)” (More Realty Corp. v. Mootchnick, ante, p. 705, decided by this court January 29, 1931.) Appeal from order denying motion for reargument dismissed, as such an order is not appealable. (Young v. Corning, 183 App. Div. 923.) Lazansky, P. J., Kapper, Carswell, Seudder and Davis, JJ., concur.

Footnotes

Kelmenson v. Boulevard Construction Corp., 232 A.D. 847 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1931).

Pincite

232 A.D. 847 (Kelmenson v. Boulevard Construction Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Footnotes

Related