X. J. Marschall Servicing Corp. v. Waters Edge Holding Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

X. J. Marschall Servicing Corp. v. Waters Edge Holding Corp.

52 A.D.2d 877, 384 N.Y.S.2d 702, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12709

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

DecidedMay 10, 1976

StatusPublished

This text of 52 A.D.2d 877 (X. J. Marschall Servicing Corp. v. Waters Edge Holding 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

X. J. Marschall Servicing Corp. v. Waters Edge Holding Corp., 52 A.D.2d 877, 384 N.Y.S.2d 702, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12709 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, Waters Edge Holding Corporation appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated August 26, 1975, as denied its motion to (1) dismiss the affirmative defenses interposed by defendant Marschall against its counterclaims, (2) dismiss the action against the defendants Muniz, Richman and Friscia and (3) vacate, in its entirety, the respondent’s demand for a bill of particulars. Order affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements. Under the facts herein, Special Term was warranted in reaching the conclusion that it did. Cohalan, Acting P. J., Damiani, Rabin, Titone and Hawkins, 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, Waters Edge Holding Corporation appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated August 26, 1975, as denied its motion to (1) dismiss the affirmative defenses interposed by defendant Marschall against its counterclaims, (2) dismiss the action against the defendants Muniz, Richman and Friscia and (3) vacate, in its entirety, the respondent’s demand for a bill of particulars. Order affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements. Under the facts herein, Special Term was warranted in reaching the conclusion that it did. Cohalan, Acting P. J., Damiani, Rabin, Titone and Hawkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

52 A.D.2d 877, 384 N.Y.S.2d 702, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12709, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/x-j-marschall-servicing-corp-v-waters-edge-holding-corp-nyappdiv-1976.