Levine v. Hartman Realty Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Levine v. Hartman Realty Co.

163 A.D. 914, 147 N.Y.S. 1122

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

DecidedMay 15, 1914

StatusPublished

This text of 163 A.D. 914 (Levine v. Hartman Realty Co.) 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

Levine v. Hartman Realty Co., 163 A.D. 914, 147 N.Y.S. 1122 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1914).

Pincite

Opinion

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. As the justice at Special Term imposed conditions on granting this motion, which protect plaintiff from delays arising from this joinder of additional defendants, such exercise of his discretion will not be reviewed on appeal. His holding that it is better to dispose of respondents’ claims in this action rather than leave a door open for further litigation accords with the authorities. (30Cye. 138.) Apparently through the joinder of these defendants a single judgment may end the controversy. We think, however, that the only question which Cass & Apfel can .raise in this action is whether plaintiff is the owner absolutely of the bond and mortgage and entitled to recover the amount secured thereby, after crediting payments thereon, or is the owner of a fractional part thereof. Jenks, P. J., Burr, Carr, Stapleton and Putnam, JJ., concurred.

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

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. As the justice at Special Term imposed conditions on granting this motion, which protect plaintiff from delays arising from this joinder of additional defendants, such exercise of his discretion will not be reviewed on appeal. His holding that it is better to dispose of respondents’ claims in this action rather than leave a door open for further litigation accords with the authorities. (30Cye. 138.) Apparently through the joinder of these defendants a single judgment may end the controversy. We think, however, that the only question which Cass & Apfel can .raise in this action is whether plaintiff is the owner absolutely of the bond and mortgage and entitled to recover the amount secured thereby, after crediting payments thereon, or is the owner of a fractional part thereof. Jenks, P. J., Burr, Carr, Stapleton and Putnam, JJ., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

163 A.D. 914, 147 N.Y.S. 1122, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/levine-v-hartman-realty-co-nyappdiv-1914.