From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Kamerman v. C.D.C. Furniture Corp.

Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County
Dec 31, 1956
5 Misc. 2d 27 (N.Y. Misc. 1956)

Opinion

December 31, 1956

Joseph Buch for plaintiff.

Abraham Kantor for C.D.C. Furniture Mfg. Corp., defendant.

Jacob K. Javits, Attorney-General for People of the State of New York, defendant.

Watson Elevator Company, Inc., defendant in person.

David Harrison for Appelbaum Bros. Contracting Co., defendant.

Harold H. Malkan for Stuyvesant Oil Burner Corp., defendant.

Dreyer Beldock for Greenpoint Glass Co. Inc., defendant.

Harold M. Grossman for Grossman Steel Stair Corp., defendant.

Burton W. Stone for J. Wiessman and Son, defendant.

Benjamin Mankelker for System Lumber Company, Inc., defendant. David S. Elgot for Samuel Reger, defendant.

Matthias H. Sternberg for Louis Greenberg, Inc., defendant.

Klein, Wikler Gottlieb for Ace Supply Company, Inc., defendant.

Garmesey, Goldman Garmesey for Ventimiglia Piazza, defendant.

Charles Sloane for Haywood Floor Co., Inc., defendant.

Property Owners Violation Clinic, Inc., defendant in person.


Motion is denied with respect to adding a second cause of action on promissory notes and granted on consent to add parties, to correct names and errors and to supply omissions.

The primary object sought here is to permit the simultaneous maintenance of dual actions on the debt reflected by promissory notes secured by a mortgage being foreclosed, contrary to legislative policy (Civ. Prac. Act, § 1078) and long judicial history ( Equitable Life Ins. Soc. v. Stevens, 63 N.Y. 341, 344; White v. Wielandt, 259 App. Div. 676, 681-682, affd. 286 N.Y. 609; President Directors of Manhattan Co. v. Callister Bros., 256 App. Div. 1097, affd. 282 N.Y. 629). The interpretation put on section 1078 of the Civil Practice Act as imperfectly quoted is specious when the whole context is read. It prohibits another action on the debt without leave of court while the foreclosure action is pending or after final judgment. The suggestion that Shipman v. Niles ( 75 App. Div. 451, affd. 177 N.Y. 527) allows alternative procedures is correct. It does not authorize simultaneous alternate actions. Settle order.


Summaries of

Kamerman v. C.D.C. Furniture Corp.

Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County
Dec 31, 1956
5 Misc. 2d 27 (N.Y. Misc. 1956)
Case details for

Kamerman v. C.D.C. Furniture Corp.

Case Details

Full title:DAVID KAMERMAN, Plaintiff, v. C.D.C. FURNITURE MANUFACTURING CORPORATION…

Court:Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County

Date published: Dec 31, 1956

Citations

5 Misc. 2d 27 (N.Y. Misc. 1956)
162 N.Y.S.2d 999

Citing Cases

Stern v. Itkin Bros

Plaintiffs are also barred by subdivision 3 of section 1301 Real Prop. Acts. of the Real Property Actions and…

Light v. Granatell

Although it is admitted by defendant that Newburgh has foreclosed its tax lien on the subject property, he…