AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes

ANNA RAPHAEL, Appellant, v. GOLDMAN FURNITURE COMPANY, INC., Respondent, and Others, Defendants.

Action for the foreclosure of a mortgage upon real property. Order granting motion of the respondent under section 1077-h of the Civil Practice Act, reversed on the law, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and the motion denied, with ten dollars costs. Section 1077-h, in so far as it purports to authorize the vacatur of a judgment of foreclosure and sale theretofore entered, is invalid. It was beyond legislative power to destroy rights vesting in the plaintiff as a consequence of the entry of the judgment herein. ( Livingston v. Livingston, 173 N.Y. 377, and cases cited therein.) As was said by Ruger, Ch. J., in Gilman v. Tucker ( 128 N.Y. 190, 204): "We must bear in mind that a judgment has here been rendered, and the rights flowing from it have passed beyond the legislative power, either directly or indirectly, to reach or destroy. After adjudication the fruits of the judgment become rights of property. These rights became vested by the action of the court and were thereby placed beyond the reach of legislative power to affect." Young, Hagarty, Carswell and Davis, JJ., concur; Lazansky, P.J., not voting.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

RAPHAEL v. GOLDMAN FURNITURE COMPANY, INC
(Oct 1, 1935)