Roffe v. Yerington Realty & Building Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Roffe v. Yerington Realty & Building Co.

260 A.D. 4, 20 N.Y.S.2d 673, 1940 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4511

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

DecidedJune 19, 1940

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 260 A.D. 4 (Roffe v. Yerington Realty & Building Co.) 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

Roffe v. Yerington Realty & Building Co., 260 A.D. 4, 20 N.Y.S.2d 673, 1940 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4511 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1940).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Plaintiff in purchasing the two transfer of tax hens at a public sale, neither bought in any property of the defendant Yerington Realty and Building Company, Inc., nor did she deal with the corporation in any respect. In making her purchase, she dealt, not with the corporation, but with the city of New York, a third party fully capable of protecting its own rights. She bought nothing which the corporation owned or to which it had a right. In the circumstances plaintiff was under no duty, though an officer and director of the corporation, to make an outlay of her own funds for the benefit of the corporate defendant. (Seymour v. S. F. C. Assn., 144 N. Y. 333, 343; Hauben v. Morris, 255 App. Div. 35, 46; affd., 281 N. Y. 652.)

The same principle is equally applicable to the other parcel of real property in which plaintiff and defendants-respondents were tenants in common. The mere relationship of cotenancy did not prevent the purchase and enforcement by plaintiff of the transfer of tax lien incumbering the property referred to in the record as Parcel B. (Streeter v. Shultz, 45 Him, 406; affd., 127 N. Y. 652; Starkweather v. Jenner, 216 U. S. 524.)

The order and judgment should be reversed, with costs, and the motion for summary judgment denied.

Present — Martin, P. J., Glennon, Untermyer, Cohn and Callahan, JJ.

Order and judgment unanimously reversed, with costs, and motion for summary judgment denied.

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

Per Curiam.

Plaintiff in purchasing the two transfer of tax hens at a public sale, neither bought in any property of the defendant Yerington Realty and Building Company, Inc., nor did she deal with the corporation in any respect. In making her purchase, she dealt, not with the corporation, but with the city of New York, a third party fully capable of protecting its own rights. She bought nothing which the corporation owned or to which it had a right. In the circumstances plaintiff was under no duty, though an officer and director of the corporation, to make an outlay of her own funds for the benefit of the corporate defendant. (Seymour v. S. F. C. Assn., 144 N. Y. 333, 343; Hauben v. Morris, 255 App. Div. 35, 46; affd., 281 N. Y. 652.)

The same principle is equally applicable to the other parcel of real property in which plaintiff and defendants-respondents were tenants in common. The mere relationship of cotenancy did not prevent the purchase and enforcement by plaintiff of the transfer of tax lien incumbering the property referred to in the record as Parcel B. (Streeter v. Shultz, 45 Him, 406; affd., 127 N. Y. 652; Starkweather v. Jenner, 216 U. S. 524.)

The order and judgment should be reversed, with costs, and the motion for summary judgment denied.

Present — Martin, P. J., Glennon, Untermyer, Cohn and Callahan, JJ.

Order and judgment unanimously reversed, with costs, and motion for summary judgment denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

260 A.D. 4, 20 N.Y.S.2d 673, 1940 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4511, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roffe-v-yerington-realty-building-co-nyappdiv-1940.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack