Edward J. Moberg Co. v. Mohr

• Decision Date: 11 May 1923
• Citation: 236 N.Y. 553,142 N.E. 280
• Parties: EDWARD J. MOBERG COMPANY, Inc., Respondent, v. Charles MOHR, Jr., Appellant. ROBLO CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, Inc., Respondent, v. Charles MARCK et al., Appellants. POTTER AVENUE REALTY CORPORATION, Respondent, v. Benjamin BURG, Appellant.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

236 N.Y. 553

142 N.E. 280

EDWARD J. MOBERG COMPANY, Inc., Respondent,

v.Charles MOHR, Jr., Appellant.

ROBLO CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, Inc., Respondent,

v.Charles MARCK et al., Appellants.

POTTER AVENUE REALTY CORPORATION, Respondent,

v.Benjamin BURG, Appellant.

Court of Appeals of New York.

May 11, 1923.

Appeal, in each of the above-entitled actions, from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department (204 App. Div. 710,199 N. Y. Supp. 382), entered April 7, 1923, in favor of plaintiff upon the submission of a controversy under section 546 of the Civil Practice Act. The judgment in each case directed specific performance of a contract for the purchase of real property and adjudged that chapter 949 of the Laws of 1920 and chapter 444 of the Laws of 1921, exempting from taxation for 10 years the buildings on said premises, were constitutional and valid. %j F. Donnelly and John Kadel, both of New York City, for Charles Mohr, Jr., appellant.Max Sheinart, of New York City, for Charles Marck et al., appellants.

George P. Nicholson, Corp. Counsel, of New York City (William H. King and Isaac Phillips, both of New York City, of counsel), for City of New York.

Louis Marshall, Samuel Untermyer, and Charles C. Lockwood, all of New York City, for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

Judgments affirmed, without costs.

HISCOCK, C. J., and HOGAN, CARDOZO, POUND, McLAUGHLIN, and CRANE, JJ., concur.

ANDREWS, J., absent.