Leanza v. Sutton

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Leanza v. Sutton

53 A.D.2d 637, 384 N.Y.S.2d 506, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13354

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

DecidedJune 14, 1976

StatusPublished

This text of 53 A.D.2d 637 (Leanza v. Sutton) 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

Leanza v. Sutton, 53 A.D.2d 637, 384 N.Y.S.2d 506, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13354 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, on an unrecorded mortgage note, heard on an agreed statement of facts, defendants appeal from two judgments of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated June 11, 1973 and September 18, 1973, respectively, which are in favor of plaintiffs and against them. Appeal from the judgment dated June 11, 1973 dismissed. That judgment has been superseded by the judgment dated September 18, 1973. Judgment dated September 18, 1973 affirmed. Respondents are awarded one bill of costs to cover both appeals. Upon the record presented, we find that the defendant Sutton voluntarily signed the note in suit and that the note was supported by valid consideration. Latham, Acting P. J., Margett, Damiani, Rabin and Shapiro, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, on an unrecorded mortgage note, heard on an agreed statement of facts, defendants appeal from two judgments of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated June 11, 1973 and September 18, 1973, respectively, which are in favor of plaintiffs and against them. Appeal from the judgment dated June 11, 1973 dismissed. That judgment has been superseded by the judgment dated September 18, 1973. Judgment dated September 18, 1973 affirmed. Respondents are awarded one bill of costs to cover both appeals. Upon the record presented, we find that the defendant Sutton voluntarily signed the note in suit and that the note was supported by valid consideration. Latham, Acting P. J., Margett, Damiani, Rabin and Shapiro, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

53 A.D.2d 637, 384 N.Y.S.2d 506, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13354, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/leanza-v-sutton-nyappdiv-1976.