From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rocco v. Chain Building Corporation

Supreme Court, Westchester County
Mar 7, 1938
167 Misc. 375 (N.Y. Misc. 1938)

Opinion

March 7, 1938.

Irwin Isaacs, for the plaintiffs.

Joseph Howard Katz, for the defendants.


This is an application for a reargument, which is granted. Upon the original argument in open court it appeared from the statement of counsel in opposition and partially supported in the moving affidavits that the Chain Building Corporation, against whom the lien was filed, and Sherwood River Corporation, the real owner, against whom the plaintiff now desires to file the lien, nunc pro tunc, are in fact one and the same except for the difference in corporate names, the same officers and stockholders occupying the same offices. From the bench, in the interest of justice, the motion was granted. Before an order was signed my attention was called to the case of Gates Co. v. National Fair Exposition Assn. ( 225 N.Y. 142), and, acting upon it, the motion was denied. Upon this reargument my attention has been called to Matter of Dorsey, Inc. ( 240 A.D. 1005), which refers to the Gates case ( supra). Following this decision of our own department, I return to my original determination.

The motion is granted. Submit order on notice.


Summaries of

Rocco v. Chain Building Corporation

Supreme Court, Westchester County
Mar 7, 1938
167 Misc. 375 (N.Y. Misc. 1938)
Case details for

Rocco v. Chain Building Corporation

Case Details

Full title:FRANK ROCCO and Another, Plaintiffs, v. CHAIN BUILDING CORPORATION and…

Court:Supreme Court, Westchester County

Date published: Mar 7, 1938

Citations

167 Misc. 375 (N.Y. Misc. 1938)
3 N.Y.S.2d 219

Citing Cases

Matter of O'Neill

( Maurer v. Bliss, 6 N.Y. St. Repr. 224, affd. 116 N.Y. 665.) It seems to me that section 12-a was enacted to…

Matter of Boulder Apts. v. Walsh

It has been held that the word "failure" as used in the said provision means an unsuccessful attempt, not an…