Ninety Elliott Avenue Corp. v. Elliott Avenue Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ninety Elliott Avenue Corp. v. Elliott Avenue Corp.

130 A.D.2d 471, 514 N.Y.S.2d 900, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 46443

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

DecidedMay 4, 1987

StatusPublished

This text of 130 A.D.2d 471 (Ninety Elliott Avenue Corp. v. Elliott Avenue Corp.) 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

Ninety Elliott Avenue Corp. v. Elliott Avenue Corp., 130 A.D.2d 471, 514 N.Y.S.2d 900, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 46443 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant Elliott Ave. Corp. appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Ruskin, J.), entered August 27, 1986, which granted the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The representations made by the plaintiff as to the rent-control status of the apartments in this multiple dwelling were set forth in the contract of sale and the mortgage. The appellant failed to present evidentiary proof in admissible form that these representations were false (see, Friends of Animals v Associated Fur Mfrs., 46 NY2d 1065). Thompson, J. P., Lawrence, Rubin, Kunzeman and Sullivan, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant Elliott Ave. Corp. appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Ruskin, J.), entered August 27, 1986, which granted the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The representations made by the plaintiff as to the rent-control status of the apartments in this multiple dwelling were set forth in the contract of sale and the mortgage. The appellant failed to present evidentiary proof in admissible form that these representations were false (see, Friends of Animals v Associated Fur Mfrs., 46 NY2d 1065). Thompson, J. P., Lawrence, Rubin, Kunzeman and Sullivan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

130 A.D.2d 471, 514 N.Y.S.2d 900, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 46443, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ninety-elliott-avenue-corp-v-elliott-avenue-corp-nyappdiv-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack