Roseth Realty Co. v. Dornstreich

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Roseth Realty Co. v. Dornstreich

228 A.D. 725

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

DecidedJanuary 15, 1930

StatusPublished

This text of 228 A.D. 725 (Roseth Realty Co. v. Dornstreich) 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

Roseth Realty Co. v. Dornstreich, 228 A.D. 725 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1930).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment modified by providing that the sum of $400 be credited to appellant on the deficiency judgment, and as so modified unanimously affirmed, without costs. The evidence clearly shows that appellant was entitled to an allowance of $400, and this amount should be credited on the deficiency judgment. The judgment roll previously entered is received by this court in support of an affirmance of the judgment. (Dunham v. Townshend, 118 N. Y. 281, 286; Karfiol v. City of New York, 119 App. Div. 70.) Findings of fact numbered 24 to 31, inclusive, conclusions of law numbered 7 and 8,-and inconsistent findings and conclusions with respect to the said sum of $400 are reversed, and new findings, incorporating recitals covering the history of the case, without interpreting the effect or consequence of what was done, will be substituted therefor. Present — Lazansky, P. J., Rich, Kapper, Carswell and Scudder, JJ. Settle order on notice.

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

Judgment modified by providing that the sum of $400 be credited to appellant on the deficiency judgment, and as so modified unanimously affirmed, without costs. The evidence clearly shows that appellant was entitled to an allowance of $400, and this amount should be credited on the deficiency judgment. The judgment roll previously entered is received by this court in support of an affirmance of the judgment. (Dunham v. Townshend, 118 N. Y. 281, 286; Karfiol v. City of New York, 119 App. Div. 70.) Findings of fact numbered 24 to 31, inclusive, conclusions of law numbered 7 and 8,-and inconsistent findings and conclusions with respect to the said sum of $400 are reversed, and new findings, incorporating recitals covering the history of the case, without interpreting the effect or consequence of what was done, will be substituted therefor. Present — Lazansky, P. J., Rich, Kapper, Carswell and Scudder, JJ. Settle order on notice.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

228 A.D. 725, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roseth-realty-co-v-dornstreich-nyappdiv-1930.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack