From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Maidment v. Newbridge Properties, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 12, 1945
269 App. Div. 696 (N.Y. App. Div. 1945)

Opinion

March 12, 1945.

Present — Close, P.J., Hagarty, Johnston, Adel and Lewis, JJ.


In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the appealing defendants assert that the lien of the mortgage is subject to easements created by restrictive covenants set forth in deeds of conveyance made by the mortgagor after the making and recording of the mortgage. Order of reference and judgment of the County Court, Nassau County, in favor of plaintiff unanimously affirmed, with costs. That part of finding of fact No. 3 following the word "consideration" is reversed and not made. The lien of the mortgage is entitled to lawful priority, and there is no equitable estoppel operating against its enforcement. The trial court correctly held that proof of notice to the mortgagees of the covenants and restrictions would not be ground for changing his decision; but inasmuch as the tender of proof of notice was rejected, so much of finding of fact No. 3 as is above reversed should not have been made. If the facts in Schwab v. Whitmore, Rauber Vicinus Co., Inc. ( 245 App. Div. 174) are not distinguishable, that decision will not be followed.


Summaries of

Maidment v. Newbridge Properties, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 12, 1945
269 App. Div. 696 (N.Y. App. Div. 1945)
Case details for

Maidment v. Newbridge Properties, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:FRED H. MAIDMENT, Respondent, v. NEWBRIDGE PROPERTIES, INC., et al.…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Mar 12, 1945

Citations

269 App. Div. 696 (N.Y. App. Div. 1945)