Stone Liberty Realty Corp. v. Binghamton Savings Bank

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Stone Liberty Realty Corp. v. Binghamton Savings Bank

249 A.D. 789, 292 N.Y.S. 339, 1936 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6015

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

DecidedDecember 30, 1936

StatusPublished

This text of 249 A.D. 789 (Stone Liberty Realty Corp. v. Binghamton Savings Bank) 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

Stone Liberty Realty Corp. v. Binghamton Savings Bank, 249 A.D. 789, 292 N.Y.S. 339, 1936 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6015 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint on the merits in an action to establish and to foreclose an equitable lien where the plaintiff had mistakenly paid taxes on property to which it had no claim or interest, reversed on the law and the facts and a new trial granted, costs to abide the event. In our opinion, the plaintiff made out a prima facie case. The contention of the respondent, a mortgagee, that it had been prejudiced by the appellant’s erroneous payment is a defense which should have been pleaded and proved. Bindings of fact and the conclusions of law inconsistent herewith are reversed. Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Johnston, Adel and Taylor, JJ., concur. Settle order on notice.

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

Judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint on the merits in an action to establish and to foreclose an equitable lien where the plaintiff had mistakenly paid taxes on property to which it had no claim or interest, reversed on the law and the facts and a new trial granted, costs to abide the event. In our opinion, the plaintiff made out a prima facie case. The contention of the respondent, a mortgagee, that it had been prejudiced by the appellant’s erroneous payment is a defense which should have been pleaded and proved. Bindings of fact and the conclusions of law inconsistent herewith are reversed. Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Johnston, Adel and Taylor, JJ., concur. Settle order on notice.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

249 A.D. 789, 292 N.Y.S. 339, 1936 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6015, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stone-liberty-realty-corp-v-binghamton-savings-bank-nyappdiv-1936.