Morawski v. Gaunay

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Morawski v. Gaunay

22 A.D.2d 745, 253 N.Y.S.2d 330, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2945

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

DecidedOctober 28, 1964

StatusPublished

This text of 22 A.D.2d 745 (Morawski v. Gaunay) 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

Morawski v. Gaunay, 22 A.D.2d 745, 253 N.Y.S.2d 330, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2945 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

Gibson, P. J.

Appellant’s drayman’s lien (Lien Law, § 187) was subordinate to the lien of respondent’s chattel mortgage previously recorded, inasmuch as no statute provided a different priority (cf. Matter of Conklin v. Long, 18 A D 2d 246, 250, and authorities there cited). Appellant’s affidavit in opposition to the motion is completely inadequate and furnishes no factual support for the contention that the services giving rise to the lien were authorized by respondent or rendered for her benefit and her priority thereby extinguished. It follows that summary judgment was properly granted. Order affirmed, without costs. Herlihy, Reynolds, Taylor and Hamm, JJ., concur.

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

Gibson, P. J.

Appellant’s drayman’s lien (Lien Law, § 187) was subordinate to the lien of respondent’s chattel mortgage previously recorded, inasmuch as no statute provided a different priority (cf. Matter of Conklin v. Long, 18 A D 2d 246, 250, and authorities there cited). Appellant’s affidavit in opposition to the motion is completely inadequate and furnishes no factual support for the contention that the services giving rise to the lien were authorized by respondent or rendered for her benefit and her priority thereby extinguished. It follows that summary judgment was properly granted. Order affirmed, without costs. Herlihy, Reynolds, Taylor and Hamm, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

22 A.D.2d 745, 253 N.Y.S.2d 330, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2945, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morawski-v-gaunay-nyappdiv-1964.