Waterman v. Witteman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Waterman v. Witteman

25 A.D.2d 531, 267 N.Y.S.2d 660, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5039

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

DecidedFebruary 7, 1966

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 25 A.D.2d 531 (Waterman v. Witteman) 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

Waterman v. Witteman, 25 A.D.2d 531, 267 N.Y.S.2d 660, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5039 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to foreclose a mortgage on certain real property and for other relief, plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County, entered August 18, 1965, as denied her motion for summary judgment. Order, insofar as appealed from, reversed and plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment granted, with $10 costs and disbursements. The defense of usury interposed in defendant’s answer was not available to him as a guarantor of the corporate obligation (General Phoenix Corp. v. Cabot, 300 N. Y. 87, 95; Salvin v. Myles Realty Co., 227 N. Y. 51, 58; Union Estates Co. v. Adlon Constr. Co., 221 N. Y. 183, 186; Rosa v. Butterfield, 33 N. Y. 665). The motion papers disclose no issues of fact requiring a trial and plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment should have been granted.

Ughetta, Acting P, J., Christ, Brennan, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to foreclose a mortgage on certain real property and for other relief, plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County, entered August 18, 1965, as denied her motion for summary judgment. Order, insofar as appealed from, reversed and plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment granted, with $10 costs and disbursements. The defense of usury interposed in defendant’s answer was not available to him as a guarantor of the corporate obligation (General Phoenix Corp. v. Cabot, 300 N. Y. 87, 95; Salvin v. Myles Realty Co., 227 N. Y. 51, 58; Union Estates Co. v. Adlon Constr. Co., 221 N. Y. 183, 186; Rosa v. Butterfield, 33 N. Y. 665). The motion papers disclose no issues of fact requiring a trial and plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment should have been granted.

Ughetta, Acting P, J., Christ, Brennan, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

25 A.D.2d 531, 267 N.Y.S.2d 660, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5039, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/waterman-v-witteman-nyappdiv-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack