Seamen's Bank for Savings v. Joneca Realty Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Seamen's Bank for Savings v. Joneca Realty Corp.

255 A.D. 980, 8 N.Y.S.2d 1000, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6141

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

DecidedDecember 5, 1938

StatusPublished

This text of 255 A.D. 980 (Seamen's Bank for Savings v. Joneca Realty Corp.) 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

Seamen's Bank for Savings v. Joneca Realty Corp., 255 A.D. 980, 8 N.Y.S.2d 1000, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6141 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1938).

Pincite

Opinion

Order allowing twenty-nine amendments proposed by plaintiff to defendant’s proposed case modified so as to provide that amendments numbered 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 11, 15, 17, 19, 23, 26 and 27 be disallowed, and as so modified affirmed, without costs. Respondent, if so advised, may print a supplemental record containing the testimony referred to in proposed amendments numbered 5 and 6, said supplemental record to be settled before the trial justice on three days’ notice. The amendments here disallowed are unnecessary in view of the fact that the appeal is from the judgment only in so far as it decrees reformation of the mortgage. Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell, Johnston and Close, JJ., concur.

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

Order allowing twenty-nine amendments proposed by plaintiff to defendant’s proposed case modified so as to provide that amendments numbered 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 11, 15, 17, 19, 23, 26 and 27 be disallowed, and as so modified affirmed, without costs. Respondent, if so advised, may print a supplemental record containing the testimony referred to in proposed amendments numbered 5 and 6, said supplemental record to be settled before the trial justice on three days’ notice. The amendments here disallowed are unnecessary in view of the fact that the appeal is from the judgment only in so far as it decrees reformation of the mortgage. Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell, Johnston and Close, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

255 A.D. 980, 8 N.Y.S.2d 1000, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6141, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/seamens-bank-for-savings-v-joneca-realty-corp-nyappdiv-1938.