Laurel Realty Co. v. Galasso

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Laurel Realty Co. v. Galasso

6 A.D.2d 889, 177 N.Y.S.2d 1016, 1958 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5090

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

DecidedJuly 14, 1958

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 6 A.D.2d 889 (Laurel Realty Co. v. Galasso) 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

Laurel Realty Co. v. Galasso, 6 A.D.2d 889, 177 N.Y.S.2d 1016, 1958 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5090 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1958).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action by an assignee to foreclose a [890]*890purchase-money mortgage on real property, the appeal is from so much of an order as denied appellant’s motion for summary judgment striking out respondent’s answer (Rules Civ. Prac., rule 113). The defense is usury and appellant relies upon an estoppel certificate executed by respondent. The answering affidavit, in addition to allegations showing that a usurious bonus was exacted by the mortgagee when the mortgage was executed, sets forth facts tending to establish that the respondent did not know the nature or purpose of the certificate, and that he was induced to sign it by reason of false representations made to him by an attorney, who had represented him and the mortgagee when the mortgage was given and who apparently was acting as attorney for the mortgagee on the occasion when the estoppel certificate was executed and delivered. Order, insofar as appealed from, affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. No opinion. Nolan, P. J., Wenzel, Murphy, Hallinan and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur.

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

In an action by an assignee to foreclose a [890]*890purchase-money mortgage on real property, the appeal is from so much of an order as denied appellant’s motion for summary judgment striking out respondent’s answer (Rules Civ. Prac., rule 113). The defense is usury and appellant relies upon an estoppel certificate executed by respondent. The answering affidavit, in addition to allegations showing that a usurious bonus was exacted by the mortgagee when the mortgage was executed, sets forth facts tending to establish that the respondent did not know the nature or purpose of the certificate, and that he was induced to sign it by reason of false representations made to him by an attorney, who had represented him and the mortgagee when the mortgage was given and who apparently was acting as attorney for the mortgagee on the occasion when the estoppel certificate was executed and delivered. Order, insofar as appealed from, affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. No opinion. Nolan, P. J., Wenzel, Murphy, Hallinan and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 A.D.2d 889, 177 N.Y.S.2d 1016, 1958 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5090, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/laurel-realty-co-v-galasso-nyappdiv-1958.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack