Contracts · MBE-tested
Antonio Pellino and Another, Appellants, v. 3232 Hull Avenue Realty Corporation, Respondent, Impleaded with The People of the State of New York and Others, Defendants
237 A.D. 759·New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division·1933·NY
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
Antonio Pellino and Another, Appellants, v. 3232 Hull Avenue Realty Corporation, Respondent, Impleaded with The People of the State of New York and Others, Defendants.
First Department,
February 17, 1933.
Charles Novello, for the appellants.
Joseph A. Sarafite of counsel [Loms J. Naftalison with him on the brief; Sarafite & Naftalison, attorneys], for the respondent.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam.]
Per Curiam.
No triable issue is presented by the answering affidavit. The mortgage is eoncededly past due and no consideration has been shown for the alleged extension agreement. The exact amount due may be determined before a referee appointed to compute.
The order should be reversed, with twenty dollars costs and disbursements, and the motion- granted, with ten dollars costs.
Present — Finch, P. J., Martin, O’Malley, Sherman and Townley, JJ.
Order reversed, with twenty dollars costs and disbursements, and motion granted, with ten dollars costs. Settle order on notice.