From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Vangellow v. Rutyna

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Nov 19, 1941
263 App. Div. 796 (N.Y. App. Div. 1941)

Opinion

November 19, 1941.

Present — Crosby, P.J., Taylor, Dowling, Harris and McCurn, JJ.


Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. All concur, except Harris, J., who dissents and votes for reversal and for dismissal of the complaint on the ground that the articles offered for sale at the time of the sale were not all at the place where the notice said they would be sold and the notice gave no location of any of the articles different from that of the place of sale as noticed. (Pers. Prop. Law, § 79 and following sections; Shimer v. Mosher, 39 Hun, 153; Strickland v. Hare Chase, Inc., 217 App. Div. 196; Manhattan Taxi Service Corp. v. Checker Cab Mfg. Corp., 226 id. 624; modfd., 253 N.Y. 455.) (The judgment affirms a judgment of the Rochester City Court in favor of plaintiff in an action for deficiency in conditional contract foreclosure. The order is the order of affirmance.)


Summaries of

Vangellow v. Rutyna

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Nov 19, 1941
263 App. Div. 796 (N.Y. App. Div. 1941)
Case details for

Vangellow v. Rutyna

Case Details

Full title:JAMES VANGELLOW and SPIROS VANGELLOW, Doing Business under the Assumed…

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

Date published: Nov 19, 1941

Citations

263 App. Div. 796 (N.Y. App. Div. 1941)