Opinion · Nylaw New York

BROOKLYN TRUST COMPANY v. ESS ESS REALTY COMPANY, 273 App. Div. 775 (1947)

BROOKLYN Tr. Co., as Tr. under a Declaration of Tr. Dated the29th Day of August, 1938, for the Benefit of Certificate Holders ofGuarantee No. 181,325 of Bond & Mortg. Guarantee Co., Respondent,v. ESS ESS REALTY Co. et al., Defendants, & LAURENS R. BOWDEN,Appellant., 273 A.D. 775 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department. 1947)

Type: Opinion
Court: Nylaw New York
Jurisdiction: Nylaw
Date: 1947-12-08
Topic: general

BROOKLYN TRUST COMPANY v. ESS ESS REALTY COMPANY, 273 App. Div. 775 (1947) BROOKLYN TRUST COMPANY, as Trustee under a Declaration of Trust Dated the29th Day of August, 1938, for the Benefit of Certificate Holders ofGuarantee Number 181,325 of Bond and Mortgage Guarantee Company, Respondent,v. ESS ESS REALTY COMPANY et al., Defendants, and LAURENS R. BOWDEN,Appellant.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed BROOKLYN TRUST COMPANY v. ESS ESS REALTY COMPANY, 273 App. Div. 775 (1947). The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

BROOKLYN TRUST COMPANY v. ESS ESS REALTY COMPANY,273 App. Div. 775(1947)

BROOKLYN TRUST COMPANY, as Trustee under a Declaration of Trust Dated the

29th Day of August, 1938, for the Benefit of Certificate Holders of

Guarantee Number 181,325 of Bond and Mortgage Guarantee Company, Respondent,

v. ESS ESS REALTY COMPANY et al., Defendants, and LAURENS R. BOWDEN,

Appellant.

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

December 8, 1947.

Appeal by defendant Bowden from an order fixing a deficiency judgment in an action for the foreclosure of a mortgage, and from the judgment entered pursuant thereto. Order and judgment reversed on the law and the facts, with $10 costs and disbursements, and the proceeding remitted to Special Term for a rehearing. The valuations fixed by the plaintiff's witness, which were adoptedin totoby the official referee, erroneously disregarded pertinent factors — the assessed valuations fixed by the village and the town (Matter of Cedarhurst Gardens, Inc., v.Eldred,266 App. Div. 1016), the undisputed Jordan sale, the value of the trees, shrubbery and landscaping, and the true character and extent of the heating and bathroom facilities. The proof in respect of the equalization tables was improperly excluded. Carswell, Johnston, Adel and Sneed, JJ., concur; Hagarty, Acting P.J., not voting.