Rosenblum v. Cohen

256 A.D. 855, 8 N.Y.S.2d 752, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5148
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJanuary 11, 1939
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 256 A.D. 855 (Rosenblum v. Cohen) 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
Rosenblum v. Cohen, 256 A.D. 855, 8 N.Y.S.2d 752, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5148 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1939).

Opinion

This is an appeal from a judgment in an action to foreclose a purchase-money mortgage. The properties were exchanged between the defendants-appellants, Cohen and Carlin, and the defendant-respondent, Rose Gordon. Deeds were executed for the properties exchanged and it was agreed as part of the contract of exchange that a purchase-money mortgage should be given for the difference in value to Gordon, between the properties conveyed. The properties were to be conveyed clear of all incumbrances. The defendants-appellants executed to Gordon the mortgage which is the subject of this action and executed an estoppel certificate. The mortgage and certificate were immediately transferred to the plaintiff. It appears that the Gordon property, unbeknown to any of the parties, was incumbered by unpaid taxes for which the property was later sold and conveyed. The possession of the grantees in the Gordon deed was never disturbed. When the plaintiff brought this action to foreclose the mortgage the defendants interposed a counterclaim and cross-claim against Gordon asking [856]*856for the rescission of the contract on account of the tax lien and deed. No fraud was alleged and the facts were stipulated to the trial court. The trial court held that the plaintiff was entitled to foreclosure and dismissed the defendants-appellants’ counterclaim and cross-claim and gave a judgment of foreclosure which is the subject on appeal in this action. The defendants-appellants were not entitled to maintain their counterclaim. Their sole remedy was an action at law for damages for breach of covenant of seizin. (Peabody v. Kent, 213 N. Y. 154; Hilliker v. Bueger, 228 id. 11.) Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. Present — Hill, P. J., MeNamee, Crapser, Bliss and Heffernan, JJ.

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

Related

Torre v. Zuza
29 Misc. 2d 552 (New York Supreme Court, 1961)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
256 A.D. 855, 8 N.Y.S.2d 752, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5148, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rosenblum-v-cohen-nyappdiv-1939.