Umansky v. Seaboard Industries, Inc.

45 A.D.2d 1051, 358 N.Y.S.2d 22, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4323
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJuly 29, 1974
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 45 A.D.2d 1051 (Umansky v. Seaboard Industries, Inc.) 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
Umansky v. Seaboard Industries, Inc., 45 A.D.2d 1051, 358 N.Y.S.2d 22, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4323 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1974).

Opinion

In an action by assignees to foreclose a purchase-money mortgage on real property, in which defendant-mortgagor interposed a defense based upon the assignors’ alleged breach of a collateral agreement regarding the filing of subdivision maps and a counterclaim based upon the assignees’ alleged tortious interference with a contract of sale of the subject property, plaintiff-assignees appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, dated December 14, 1973, as, denied their motion to strike defendant’s answer and for summary judgment upon the complaint. Defendant-mortgagor cross-appeals from so much [1052]*1052of said order as severed its counterclaim. Order reversed, on the law, with $20 costs and disbursements payable to plaintiffs, and plaintiffs’ motion granted only insofar as it is for summary judgment, with entry of the interlocutory judgment of foreclosure and sale to be stayed pending trial and determination of the issues raised in defendant’s “affirmative defense” and counterclaim, which issues should be tried promptly. In our view, there exist no triable issues of fact with respect to plaintiffs’ right to a judgment of foreclosure and sale. Defendant’s “affirmative defense" and counterclaim in no way bear upon the validity of the bond and mortgage. However, since defendant’s claims are properly interposed and any damages established by it may be offset as against the amount due plaintiffs, we direct that these claims be speedily tried and that the entry of an interlocutory judgment of foreclosure and sale be stayed pending the trial and determination thereof. Hopkins, Acting P. J., Martuscello, Latham, Benjamin and Munder, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Mason v. Caruana
2019 NY Slip Op 8039 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
National Management Corp. v. Adolfi
277 A.D.2d 553 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
First National Bank v. Mountain Food Enterprises, Inc.
159 A.D.2d 900 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1990)
Johnson v. Gaughan
128 A.D.2d 756 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1987)
Coviello v. Garofalo
123 A.D.2d 657 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1986)
Blooming Grove Associates, Inc. v. Edmunds Lane Development Corp.
52 A.D.2d 614 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1976)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
45 A.D.2d 1051, 358 N.Y.S.2d 22, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4323, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/umansky-v-seaboard-industries-inc-nyappdiv-1974.