Walton v. Elmboro Realty Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Walton v. Elmboro Realty Co.

264 A.D. 886, 35 N.Y.S.2d 604, 1942 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8102

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

DecidedJune 22, 1942

StatusPublished

This text of 264 A.D. 886 (Walton v. Elmboro Realty Co.) 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

Walton v. Elmboro Realty Co., 264 A.D. 886, 35 N.Y.S.2d 604, 1942 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8102 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1942).

Pincite

Opinion

Proceeding instituted pursuant to section 1077-c of the Civil Practice Act by the holder of the junior interest in a mortgage upon real estate, past due as to principal, to procure an order directing the payment of surplus income of the mortgaged premises toward the reduction of such past due principal of the mortgage, and for other relief. Order denying petitioner’s application affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Although the water rates paid for the year should have been allowed to the extent of one-half thereof only, this circumstance is immaterial, since the proper allowance of other items resulted in a showing of no surplus income for the relevant period. Lazansky, P. J., Carswell, Johnston, Taylor and Close, JJ., concur.

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

Proceeding instituted pursuant to section 1077-c of the Civil Practice Act by the holder of the junior interest in a mortgage upon real estate, past due as to principal, to procure an order directing the payment of surplus income of the mortgaged premises toward the reduction of such past due principal of the mortgage, and for other relief. Order denying petitioner’s application affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Although the water rates paid for the year should have been allowed to the extent of one-half thereof only, this circumstance is immaterial, since the proper allowance of other items resulted in a showing of no surplus income for the relevant period. Lazansky, P. J., Carswell, Johnston, Taylor and Close, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

264 A.D. 886, 35 N.Y.S.2d 604, 1942 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8102, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/walton-v-elmboro-realty-co-nyappdiv-1942.