Legal Opinion

City Savings Bank v. Prior

New York Supreme Court

Decided May 8, 1940Published

1Opinion of the CourtBergan, J.

Decision upon this motion turns upon the intent expressed by the word “ heretofore ” as used by the Legislature in the amendment to section 1077-e of the Civil Practice Act by chapter 611 of the Laws of 1936. I think it relates to actions instituted prior to the beginning of the emergency (August 26, 1933) as well as during the emergency. If this is so, the provisions of section 1077-e, as last amended in relation to the stay of a sale directed by a judgment of foreclosure in any “ such action,” apply here. The section must be read in connection with the sections creating and defining the…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Loporto v. Druiss Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1934
  2. Loporto v. Druiss Company Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1935

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

Powered by the Exa API