Rocco v. Chain Building Corp.

New York Supreme Court

Rocco v. Chain Building Corp.

167 Misc. 375, 3 N.Y.S.2d 219, 1938 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1407

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedMarch 7, 1938

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 167 Misc. 375 (Rocco v. Chain Building Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Rocco v. Chain Building Corp., 167 Misc. 375, 3 N.Y.S.2d 219, 1938 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1407 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1938).

Pincite

Opinion

Davis, J.

This is an application for a reargument, which is granted. Upon the original argument in open court it appeared from the statement of counsel in opposition and partially supported in the moving affidavits that the Chain Building Corporation, against whom the lien was filed, and Sherwood River Corporation, the real owner, against whom the plaintiff now desires to file the lien, nunc pro tunc, are in fact one and the same except for the difference in corporate names, the same officers and stockholders occupying the same offices. From the bench, in the interest of justice, the motion was granted. Before an order was signed my attention was called to the case of Gates & Co. v. National Fair & Exposition Assn. (225 N. Y. 142), and, acting upon it, the motion was denied. Upon this reargument my attention has been called to Matter of Dorsey, Inc. (240 App. Div. 1005), which refers to the Gates case (supra). Following this decision of our own department, I return to my original determination.

The motion is granted. Submit order on notice.

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

Davis, J.

This is an application for a reargument, which is granted. Upon the original argument in open court it appeared from the statement of counsel in opposition and partially supported in the moving affidavits that the Chain Building Corporation, against whom the lien was filed, and Sherwood River Corporation, the real owner, against whom the plaintiff now desires to file the lien, nunc pro tunc, are in fact one and the same except for the difference in corporate names, the same officers and stockholders occupying the same offices. From the bench, in the interest of justice, the motion was granted. Before an order was signed my attention was called to the case of Gates & Co. v. National Fair & Exposition Assn. (225 N. Y. 142), and, acting upon it, the motion was denied. Upon this reargument my attention has been called to Matter of Dorsey, Inc. (240 App. Div. 1005), which refers to the Gates case (supra). Following this decision of our own department, I return to my original determination.

The motion is granted. Submit order on notice.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

167 Misc. 375, 3 N.Y.S.2d 219, 1938 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1407, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rocco-v-chain-building-corp-nysupct-1938.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack