Legal Opinion
Durand Realty Co. v. Stolman
New York Supreme Court
Decided December 21, 1949PublishedCited by 12 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtValente, J.
This lawsuit presents no consequential factual controversy. It has been brought to recover damages under the provisions of section 39-a of the Lien Law (L. 1930, ch. 859, § 20). The plaintiffs are the owner and lessees, respectively, of certain premises situated in Bronx County, and the defendants were mechanics, lienors, having performed work and furnished materials pursuant to a contract made with the plaintiffs, lessees of the premises. In an action to foreclose the lien which was filed against the respective interests of both of the present plaintiffs the issues were referred by consent…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- People v. ShakunNew York Court of Appeals · 1929
- Burks v. . BossoNew York Court of Appeals · 1905
- Hornstein v. Paramount Pictures, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1944
- Goldberger-Raabin, Inc. v. 74 Second Avenue Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1929
- Yonkers Builders Supply Co. v. Petro Luciano & Son, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1935
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Goodman v. Del-Sa-Co Foods, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1965
- Guzman v. Estate of FlukerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1996
- Joe Smith, Inc. v. Otis-Charles Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1951
- T. A. Maloney Contracting Corp. v. William E. Blume, Inc.New York Supreme Court · 1976
- E-J Electric Installation Co. v. Miller & Raved, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1976
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.