Legal Opinion

Goldstein v. Thirlex Realty, Inc.

New York Supreme Court

Decided August 2, 1977PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtArnold G. Fraiman, J.

In this action to foreclose on a mortgage, plaintiffs move for summary judgment dismissing defendant Thirlex Realty, Inc.’s answer. The sole defense raised in opposition to the motion is that plaintiffs are attorneys and their taking of an assignment of the mortgage herein was champertous and in violation of section 488 of the Judiciary Law. That section provides that an attorney shall not take an assignment of a thing in action "with the intent and for the purpose of bringing an action thereon.” (Judiciary Law, § 488, subd 1.) In the instant case, plaintiffs, who are a father and his two…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Moses v. . McDivittNew York Court of Appeals · 1882
  2. Sprung v. JaffeNew York Court of Appeals · 1957
  3. Wightman v. CatlinAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1906
  4. Baldwin v. LatsonNew York Court of Chancery · 1847

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Elliott Associates, L.P. v. Banco De La Nacion and the Republic of PeruCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1999
  2. Limpar Realty Corp. v. Uswiss Realty Holding, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1985
  3. Elliott Associates, L.P. v. Republic of PeruDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1998

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

Powered by the Exa API