From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Greenberg v. Schwartz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 19, 1948
273 App. Div. 814 (N.Y. App. Div. 1948)

Opinion

January 19, 1948.

Present — Carswell, Acting P.J., Johnston, Adel, Sneed and Wenzel, JJ.


In an action to remove a cloud on title, defendant appeals from a judgment entered in favor of plaintiff. Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. The fact that plaintiff executed the mortgage which he now seeks to remove as a cloud on title does not deprive him of the right to maintain the action. ( Stokes v. Houghton, 16 App. Div. 381.) Although this action was commenced eleven years after the execution and delivery of the mortgage, it is not barred by the Statute of Limitations. Where the action is brought by an owner in possession, the right is a continuing one which may be asserted at any time during the existence of the cloud. A different rule applies where the action is by an owner not in possession. ( Ford v. Clendenin, 215 N.Y. 10.)


Summaries of

Greenberg v. Schwartz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 19, 1948
273 App. Div. 814 (N.Y. App. Div. 1948)
Case details for

Greenberg v. Schwartz

Case Details

Full title:JACOB GREENBERG, Respondent, v. LENA SCHWARTZ, Appellant

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

Date published: Jan 19, 1948

Citations

273 App. Div. 814 (N.Y. App. Div. 1948)

Citing Cases

Scrubb v. Gould

Considering the merits of defendant's motion would not alter this outcome. An owner in possession of certain…

Knox v. Countrywide Bank

Moreover, “[t]he fact that plaintiff executed the mortgage which he now seeks to remove as a cloud on title…