Nitzky v. Ohmer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Nitzky v. Ohmer

1 A.D.2d 673, 146 N.Y.S.2d 262, 1955 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3960

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

DecidedDecember 5, 1955

StatusPublished

This text of 1 A.D.2d 673 (Nitzky v. Ohmer) 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

Nitzky v. Ohmer, 1 A.D.2d 673, 146 N.Y.S.2d 262, 1955 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3960 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1955).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover $10,000 under an agreement collateral to a lease of real property, the appeal is from an order striking out the answer and granting summary judgment in favor of respondent, and from the judgment entered thereon. Order and judgment unanimously affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. In our view, even construing the collateral agreement as a security agreement for the performance of the lease, it nevertheless is confined to the terms therein expressed — in this case the payment of rent for the particular months mentioned. It is not to be regarded as security for any other claim, such as default in the payment of taxes, water charges and sewer rents. (Scott v. Montells, 109 N. Y. 1; Chaude v. Shepard, 122 N. Y. 397; Josephi v. Creston Co., 188 App. Div. 97, affd. 230 N. Y. 549.) Present—Nolan, P. J., Wenzel, Beldock, Murphy and Ughetta, JJ.

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

In an action to recover $10,000 under an agreement collateral to a lease of real property, the appeal is from an order striking out the answer and granting summary judgment in favor of respondent, and from the judgment entered thereon. Order and judgment unanimously affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. In our view, even construing the collateral agreement as a security agreement for the performance of the lease, it nevertheless is confined to the terms therein expressed — in this case the payment of rent for the particular months mentioned. It is not to be regarded as security for any other claim, such as default in the payment of taxes, water charges and sewer rents. (Scott v. Montells, 109 N. Y. 1; Chaude v. Shepard, 122 N. Y. 397; Josephi v. Creston Co., 188 App. Div. 97, affd. 230 N. Y. 549.) Present—Nolan, P. J., Wenzel, Beldock, Murphy and Ughetta, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 A.D.2d 673, 146 N.Y.S.2d 262, 1955 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3960, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nitzky-v-ohmer-nyappdiv-1955.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack