Legal Opinion · Dissent

Blomgren v. Tinton 763 Corp.

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

Decided March 12, 1963Published

1Dissent

Breitel, J. P. (dissenting).

I dissent and vote to reverse and grant foreclosure. This is not a case involving solely the curing of a default but primarily the acceleration of the obligation to pay the entire debt.

The mortgage in suit is a purchase-money mortgage originally given to plaintiff’s close corporation, the grantor of Tinton 763 Corporation, the predecessor in title of defendant owner Southern Tinton Corp. At inception it was in the amount of $28,100 and at the time this action was begun it had been reduced to $25,357. It is junior in lien to a $61,Q00 first mortg-age which had been…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Graf v. Hope Building Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1930
  2. Albertina Realty Co. v. Rosbro Realty Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1932
  3. Noyes v. . AndersonNew York Court of Appeals · 1891
  4. Domus Realty Corp. v. 3440 Realty Co.New York Supreme Court · 1943
  5. Domus Realty Corp. v. 3440 Realty Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1943

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API