From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

330 Bleecker St. Corp. v. Mutual Tile Corp.

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Nov 22, 1932
183 N.E. 381 (N.Y. 1932)

Opinion

Argued October 26, 1932

Decided November 22, 1932

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

Albert P. Singman and Leo J. Linder for appellant. Marcus Klein and Benjamin A. Hartstein for respondent.


As between the appellant, Mutual Tile Company, and the New York Title and Mortgage Company rights and priorities must obviously be ascertained and settled. Since its rights and interests are or may be involved in that settlement respondent should have an opportunity to be heard in the matter. The proper forum for the determination of all these equities and priorities is in this action. ( McDermott v. Lawyers Mortgage Co., 232 N.Y. 336, 349.)

The order should be reversed, with costs in all courts, and the motion granted, with ten dollars costs. Question No. 1 is not answered. Question No. 2 is answered in the affirmative.

POUND, Ch. J., CRANE, LEHMAN, KELLOGG, O'BRIEN, HUBBS and CROUCH, JJ., concur.

Order reversed, etc.


Summaries of

330 Bleecker St. Corp. v. Mutual Tile Corp.

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Nov 22, 1932
183 N.E. 381 (N.Y. 1932)
Case details for

330 Bleecker St. Corp. v. Mutual Tile Corp.

Case Details

Full title:330 BLEECKER STREET CORPORATION, Respondent, v. MUTUAL TILE CORPORATION…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Nov 22, 1932

Citations

183 N.E. 381 (N.Y. 1932)
183 N.E. 381

Citing Cases

Sohmer v. Gedney Hills, Inc.

ciation's mortgage, under section 22 Lien of the Lien Law, by reason of the association's alleged failure to…

American Tel. and Tel. v. Gateway Associates

Since leave to amend the complaint should be freely granted unless the amendment sought is palpably improper…