From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Weinreb v. Webster Bagel Co., Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 17, 1965
23 A.D.2d 884 (N.Y. App. Div. 1965)

Opinion

May 17, 1965


In an action by judgment creditors of the defendant M. S. Bagels, Inc., in effect to declare their judgment liens to be prior and superior to the rights of the defendant Webster Bagel Co., Inc., a chattel mortgagee of said judgment debtor, with respect to the amount of a fire loss payable to the latter as the named insured under a certain fire insurance policy issued to it by the defendant insurance company, the plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered December 1, 1964 upon the decision of a Special Referee after a nonjury trial before him, which: (a) declared plaintiffs' rights to be subject to the rights of the defendant Webster Bagel Co., Inc.; (b) declared that said defendant is entitled to the proceeds of the fire insurance loss, in the sum of $8,000, from the defendant insurance company; and (c) directed that defendant Webster Bagel Co., Inc., recover such sum with interest from the insurance company. Judgment affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements to defendant Webster Bagel Co., Inc., payable by plaintiffs (see Cromwell v. Brooklyn Fire Ins. Co., 44 N.Y. 42, 47; Greenberg v. 1625 Putnam Ave. Corp., 241 App. Div. 623; Matter of Eisenberg v. Mercer Hicks Corp., 199 Misc. 52, 54). Ughetta, Acting P.J., Christ, Brennan, Hopkins and Benjamin, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Weinreb v. Webster Bagel Co., Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 17, 1965
23 A.D.2d 884 (N.Y. App. Div. 1965)
Case details for

Weinreb v. Webster Bagel Co., Inc.

Case Details

Full title:EMANUEL M. WEINREB et al., Appellants, v. WEBSTER BAGEL CO., INC.…

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

Date published: May 17, 1965

Citations

23 A.D.2d 884 (N.Y. App. Div. 1965)

Citing Cases

Lis v. City Collector

Petitioner is correct that, as a general equitable principle, where a mortgagor is bound by covenant to…