Thomas v. Loomis

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Thomas v. Loomis

272 A.D.2d 1036

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

DecidedOctober 29, 1947

StatusPublished

This text of 272 A.D.2d 1036 (Thomas v. Loomis) 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

Thomas v. Loomis, 272 A.D.2d 1036 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1947).

Pincite

Opinion

Submission dismissed, without costs. Memorandum: It is evident from the briefs that the basic question upon which a determination is desired is whether the failure to record proof of service of the notice to redeem with the conveyance renders the | title unmarketable. The submission does not state whether such proof of service was so recorded. It would appear from the briefs that the parties consider that all other requirements of the statute have been complied with. However, they do not so state in the submission, nor do they state facts from which we can draw ¡that conclusion. The statement of facts in the submission is in certain other respects inadequate and appears on the face thereof to be inaccurate and on the [1037]*1037whole is not sufficient to enable the court to render judgment. All concur; Dowling, J., not voting. (Submission of controversy on an agreed statement of facts in an action to compel specific performance.) Present — Dowling, Harris, McCurn, Larkin and Love, JJ.

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

Submission dismissed, without costs. Memorandum: It is evident from the briefs that the basic question upon which a determination is desired is whether the failure to record proof of service of the notice to redeem with the conveyance renders the | title unmarketable. The submission does not state whether such proof of service was so recorded. It would appear from the briefs that the parties consider that all other requirements of the statute have been complied with. However, they do not so state in the submission, nor do they state facts from which we can draw ¡that conclusion. The statement of facts in the submission is in certain other respects inadequate and appears on the face thereof to be inaccurate and on the [1037]*1037whole is not sufficient to enable the court to render judgment. All concur; Dowling, J., not voting. (Submission of controversy on an agreed statement of facts in an action to compel specific performance.) Present — Dowling, Harris, McCurn, Larkin and Love, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

272 A.D.2d 1036, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thomas-v-loomis-nyappdiv-1947.