Vangellow v. Rutyna

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Vangellow v. Rutyna

263 A.D. 796, 31 N.Y.S.2d 364, 1941 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4977

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

DecidedNovember 19, 1941

StatusPublished

This text of 263 A.D. 796 (Vangellow v. Rutyna) 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

Vangellow v. Rutyna, 263 A.D. 796, 31 N.Y.S.2d 364, 1941 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4977 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1941).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. All concur, except Harris, J., who dissents and votes for reversal and for dismissal of the complaint on the ground that the articles offered for sale at the time of the sale were not all at the place where the notice said they would be sold and the notice gave no location of any of the articles different from that of the place of sale as noticed. (Pers. Prop. Law, § 79 and following sections; Shimer v. Mosher, 39 Hun, 153; Strickland v. Hare & Chase, Inc., 217 App. Div. 196; Manhattan Taxi Service Corp. v. Checker Cab Mfg. Corp., 226 id. 624; modfd., 253 N. Y. 455.) (The judgment affirms a judgment of the Rochester City Court in favor of plaintiff in an action for deficiency in conditional contract foreclosure. The order is the order of affirmance.) Present — Crosby, P. J., Taylor, Dowling, Harris and McCum, JJ.

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

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. All concur, except Harris, J., who dissents and votes for reversal and for dismissal of the complaint on the ground that the articles offered for sale at the time of the sale were not all at the place where the notice said they would be sold and the notice gave no location of any of the articles different from that of the place of sale as noticed. (Pers. Prop. Law, § 79 and following sections; Shimer v. Mosher, 39 Hun, 153; Strickland v. Hare & Chase, Inc., 217 App. Div. 196; Manhattan Taxi Service Corp. v. Checker Cab Mfg. Corp., 226 id. 624; modfd., 253 N. Y. 455.) (The judgment affirms a judgment of the Rochester City Court in favor of plaintiff in an action for deficiency in conditional contract foreclosure. The order is the order of affirmance.) Present — Crosby, P. J., Taylor, Dowling, Harris and McCum, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

263 A.D. 796, 31 N.Y.S.2d 364, 1941 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4977, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vangellow-v-rutyna-nyappdiv-1941.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack