Case Name: Frank P. Hynes, Appellant, v. Hageville Realty Company et al., Respondents, Impleaded with Another
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1919-05-20
Citations: 226 N.Y. 672
Docket Number: 
Parties: Frank P. Hynes, Appellant, v. Hageville Realty Company et al., Respondents, Impleaded with Another.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 226
Pages: 672–673

Head Matter:
Frank P. Hynes, Appellant, v. Hageville Realty Company et al., Respondents, Impleaded with Another.
Hynes v. Hageville Realty Co., 180 App. Div. 903, affirmed.
(Argued April 28, 1919;
decided May 20, 1919.)
Appeal from a judgment entered October 10, 1917, upon an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, reversing a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict and directing a dismissal of the complaint. The action was for the alleged conversion of personal property, consisting of hotel furniture and furnishings. The complaint was in short form, with an annexed fist or schedule of the chattels claimed to have been converted. The answer of the defendant Adolph A. Hageman was • a general denial. The answer of the defendant Hageville Realty Company contained a general denial and alleged as a defense that the plaintiff was a tenant of the defendant Hageman at ■ No. 61 West Thirty-ninth street, in the borough of Manhattan, city of New York, and had in his possession there the chattels mentioned in the complaint, which were subject to a chattel mortgage in favor of the defendant Hageville Realty Company for the face amount of $1,500; that plaintiff used these premises for the purposes of prostitution and was dispossessed for that reason by the defendant Hageman in summary proceedings in the Municipal Court; that after plaintiff had been dispossessed and had abandoned the property covered by the chattel mortgage, on which $1,200 was still due, the Hageville Realty Company, deeming the property unsafe and at great risk, took possession thereof under the provisions of the chattel mortgage, and after due notice to the plaintiff sold them at public auction for $1,200, the full value of the property.
S. Goodelman for appellant.
Claude V. Pallister for respondents.

Opinion:
• Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.
Concur: Chase, Collin, Cuddeback, Hogan, McLaughlin, Crane and Andrews, JJ.