Opinion
February 16, 1937.
Appeal from the Municipal Court of the City of New York, Borough of Manhattan, Third District.
William L. Abrams [ Herman M. Pildescu of counsel], for the appellant.
Abraham J. Springer, for the respondent.
Although plaintiff sues for money loaned, the facts show the promise to repay is expressed in defendant's bond, the sole security for which is a simultaneously executed mortgage upon real property. Section 1077-b of the Civil Practice Act is, therefore, a good defense. To entitle plaintiff to summary judgment it must appear without contradiction that an action is maintainable to foreclose the mortgage. ( Citizens Nat. Bank of Freeport v. Mintz, 245 A.D. 759.) As this was not shown, it was error to grant plaintiff's motion.
Judgment and order reversed, with ten dollars costs to appellant to abide the event, and motion denied.
All concur. Present — LEVY, HAMMER and CALLAHAN, JJ.