Ponsrok v. City of Yonkers

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ponsrok v. City of Yonkers

228 A.D. 642

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

DecidedDecember 15, 1929

StatusPublished

This text of 228 A.D. 642 (Ponsrok v. City of Yonkers) 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

Ponsrok v. City of Yonkers, 228 A.D. 642 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order of the County Court of Westchester county, and order as resettled, denying defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, reversed upon the law, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion granted, with ten dollars costs. While we recognize that this court has held in Place v. City of Yonkers (43 App. Div. 380) that a verification similar to the one at bar was sufficient, we are constrained, in light of the holding of the Court of Appeals in Kingston v. M. S. Construction Corporation (249 N. Y. 533), to hold that this verification is insufficient. We have not overlooked the fact that in the Kingston case the lienor was not named as the person who was sworn. It is our conclusion that the Court of Appeals meant to hold that there cannot be a verification without signature. Lazansky, P. J., Rich, Young and Seeger, JJ., concur; Scudder, J., dissents.

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

— Order of the County Court of Westchester county, and order as resettled, denying defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, reversed upon the law, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion granted, with ten dollars costs. While we recognize that this court has held in Place v. City of Yonkers (43 App. Div. 380) that a verification similar to the one at bar was sufficient, we are constrained, in light of the holding of the Court of Appeals in Kingston v. M. S. Construction Corporation (249 N. Y. 533), to hold that this verification is insufficient. We have not overlooked the fact that in the Kingston case the lienor was not named as the person who was sworn. It is our conclusion that the Court of Appeals meant to hold that there cannot be a verification without signature. Lazansky, P. J., Rich, Young and Seeger, JJ., concur; Scudder, J., dissents.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

228 A.D. 642, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ponsrok-v-city-of-yonkers-nyappdiv-1929.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack