From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Danzig v. Gold

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Nov 1, 1935
246 App. Div. 671 (N.Y. App. Div. 1935)

Opinion

November, 1935.


The plaintiff was the owner of a second mortgage on property in Schenectady. The first mortgage was foreclosed, plaintiff herein having been made a party to said action, the property was sold and failed to bring the amount of the first mortgage. Plaintiff brought an action on the bond given in connection with the second mortgage. The defendants interposed an answer, alleging that the bond on which plaintiff bases his action was accompanied by a mortgage executed simultaneously with said bond, and that the value of the mortgaged property, less the other prior incumbrances and liens, exceeds the amount due on the bond. This is not a defense after the foreclosure of the first mortgage cutting off the rights of the plaintiff herein. The action is not governed by section 1083-b of the Civil Practice Act. The order appealed from should be reversed. Order reversed on the law, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion granted, with ten dollars costs. (See Johnson v. Meyer, 268 N.Y. 701.) Hill, P.J., Rhodes, McNamee, Crapser and Heffernan, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Danzig v. Gold

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Nov 1, 1935
246 App. Div. 671 (N.Y. App. Div. 1935)
Case details for

Danzig v. Gold

Case Details

Full title:SAMUEL R. DANZIG, Appellant, v. HENRY J. GOLD and Another, Respondents

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department

Date published: Nov 1, 1935

Citations

246 App. Div. 671 (N.Y. App. Div. 1935)

Citing Cases

Dows Estates, Inc. v. Smith

Had plaintiff and Prudence actually been first and second mortgagees with separate bonds for $12,500 and…

Bank of New York v. Kennedy

( Utter v. Richmond, 112 N.Y. 610, supra; Matter of City of New York [ Houghton Ave.], 266 N.Y. 26, supra;…