Opinion · Nylaw New York

MATTER OF 165 BROADWAY BUILDING, INC., 7 A.D.2d 897 [1st Dept 1959]

In the Matter of 165 BROADWAY Bldg., INC., Respondent, for Approval of aPlan of Reorganization.NEW YORK Tr. Co., Appellant; 165 BROADWAY Bldg. FIRST MORTGAGEBONDHOLDERS' Comm. et al., Respondents., 7 A.D.2d 897 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department. 1959)

Type
Opinion
Court
Nylaw New York
Jurisdiction
Nylaw
Date
1959-02-03
Topic
general

MATTER OF 165 BROADWAY BUILDING, INC., 7 A.D.2d 897 [1st Dept 1959] In the Matter of 165 BROADWAY BUILDING, INC., Respondent, for Approval of aPlan of Reorganization.NEW YORK TRUST COMPANY, Appellant; 165 BROADWAY BUILDING FIRST MORTGAGEBONDHOLDERS' COMMITTEE et al., Respondents.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department. February 3, 1959 Order unanimously affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the petitioner-respondent on the facts and on the law and in the exercise of discretion. It would have been proper for the Referee to receive expert testimony, if offered, as to (1) the highest price obtainable at a foreclosure sale, and (2) the maximum price obtainable for the premises in its present condition, on an all cash sale, in the open market, during the period required to process a foreclosure. Such proof was not essentially required from the appraiser appointed by the court but, if available, could have been tendered by the trustee or any other interested party. Concur — Breitel, J.P., Rabin, M.M.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed MATTER OF 165 BROADWAY BUILDING, INC., 7 A.D.2d 897 [1st Dept 1959]. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

MATTER OF 165 BROADWAY BUILDING, INC.,7 A.D.2d 897[1st Dept 1959]
In the Matter of 165 BROADWAY BUILDING, INC., Respondent, for Approval of a
Plan of Reorganization.
NEW YORK TRUST COMPANY, Appellant; 165 BROADWAY BUILDING FIRST MORTGAGE
BONDHOLDERS' COMMITTEE et al., Respondents.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department.
February 3, 1959
Order unanimously affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the petitioner-respondent on the facts and on the law and in the exercise of discretion. It would have been proper for the Referee to receive expert testimony, if offered, as to (1) the highest price obtainable at a foreclosure sale, and (2) the maximum price obtainable for the premises in its present condition, on an all cash sale, in the open market, during the period required to process a foreclosure. Such proof was not essentially required from the appraiser appointed by the court but, if available, could have been tendered by the trustee or any other interested party.

Concur — Breitel, J.P., Rabin, M.M. Frank, Valente and McNally, JJ.