New York Court of Appeals, 1939

East River Savings Bank v. 671 Prospect Avenue Holding Corp.

New York Court of Appeals · Decided April 21, 1939 · <italic>Per Curiam.</italic>

20 N.E.2d 780; 280 N.Y. 342; 1939 N.Y. LEXIS 1323 (North Eastern Reporter, Second Series)

Cases that cite this one

6 later published cases cite this decision.

Newfield v. East River Sav. Bank (2d Cir. 1941)
In re 671 Prospect Avenue Holding Corp. (2d Cir. 1939)
Statewide Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Canoe Hill, Inc. (N.Y. 1978)
South Shore Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Mikarp Realty Corp. (New York Supreme Court 1978)
Statewide Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Canoe Hill, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1976)
Adler v. Atlas Brick Corporation (N.Y. 1940)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam.

It was error to strike out the answer of appellant and to grant summary judgment for plaintiff directing, among other things, foreclosure and sale of the personal property referred to in and asserted by plaintiff to be covered by the provisions of the real estate mortgage which this action was brought to foreclose. It appears from the pleadings and affidavits submitted on the motion that such property was not as matter of law so attached to and made a part of the building as to constitute fixtures. The intent that it should not be included within the coverage of the real estate mortgage could fairly be inferred by the fact that the contract of sale specifically provided for the execution and delivery of a separate chattel mortgage instrument covering that property as additional security for the payment of part of the purchase price of the realty, which chattel mortgage was, in fact, executed, delivered to and accepted by the plaintiff at the same time as the execution and delivery of the mortgage covering the real estate. (Manufacturers Trust Co. v. Peck-Schwartz Realty Corp., 277 N. Y. 283.)

The order of the Appellate Division and the judgment of the Special Term should be reversed, with costs to the appellant in all courts, and the motion denied, with ten dollars costs. (See 280 N. Y. 814.)

Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs, Loughran and Rippey, JJ., concur; Finch, J., taking no part.

Ordered accordingly.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.