Urban Water Supply Co. v. Rosewater Construction Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Urban Water Supply Co. v. Rosewater Construction Corp.

236 A.D. 811

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

DecidedOctober 15, 1932

StatusPublished

This text of 236 A.D. 811 (Urban Water Supply Co. v. Rosewater Construction 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

Urban Water Supply Co. v. Rosewater Construction Corp., 236 A.D. 811 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

Order reversed on the law, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion to strike out the amended answer of defendant Edward C. Abel as frivolous and insufficient in law and for judgment on the pleadings against said defendant granted, with ten dollars costs. In our opinion, the respondent, by accepting the deed, assumed and agreed to pay the mortgage debt and is liable for any deficiency, and the failure of the plaintiffs to foreclose for non-payment of the taxes that became due in 1930 and 1931, prior to the default in the payment of interest, did not release respondent from such liability. Lazansky, P. J., Young, Hagarty, Carswell and Tompkins, JJ., concur.

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

Order reversed on the law, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion to strike out the amended answer of defendant Edward C. Abel as frivolous and insufficient in law and for judgment on the pleadings against said defendant granted, with ten dollars costs. In our opinion, the respondent, by accepting the deed, assumed and agreed to pay the mortgage debt and is liable for any deficiency, and the failure of the plaintiffs to foreclose for non-payment of the taxes that became due in 1930 and 1931, prior to the default in the payment of interest, did not release respondent from such liability. Lazansky, P. J., Young, Hagarty, Carswell and Tompkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

236 A.D. 811, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/urban-water-supply-co-v-rosewater-construction-corp-nyappdiv-1932.