Legal Opinion
Toner v. Ehrgott
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided May 24, 1929PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtO’Malley, J.
The action is for the foreclosure of a so-called consolidated mortgage. The plaintiff moved for judgment under rules 104, 109, 110 and 113 of the Rules of Civil Practice. The motion was made upon the pleadings and affidavits. So far as the motion under rule 113 is concerned, summary judgment in an action of this character may not be ordered. (Securities Acceptance Corporation v. Kane Co., Inc., 119 Misc. 354; affd., 207 App. Div. 840.) Of the remaining rules under which the plaintiff moved, rule 110 is the only one under which affidavits may be used. In our view this case is not one for the…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Securities Acceptance Corp. v. E. M. Kane Co.New York Supreme Court · 1922
- Securities Acceptance Corp. v. E. M. Kane Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1923
3Cited by5 opinions
- Mechanics Exchange Savings Bank v. ChesterfieldAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1970
- Dominion Financial Corp. v. 275 Washington Street Corp.New York Supreme Court · 1970
- Van Skiver v. KuhneAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1972
- Central Savings Bank v. Ritchey Realty Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1934
- In re LangerDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 1934