Case Name: In the Matter of the Application of The People of the State of New York, by George S. Van Schaick, as Superintendent of Insurance of the State of New York, for an Order to Take Possession of the Property of and Rehabilitate the Bond and Mortgage Guarantee Company. In the Matter of a Plan of Readjustment, etc., of the Rights of the Holders of Investments in a Certain Mortgage Covering Premises 501 Lefferts Avenue, Borough of Brooklyn, City of New York, Guaranteed by Bond and Mortgage Guarantee Company, Guarantee No. 181515. Estelle V. Bloch, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1935-04
Citations: 244 A.D. 747
Docket Number: 
Parties: In the Matter of the Application of The People of the State of New York, by George S. Van Schaick, as Superintendent of Insurance of the State of New York, for an Order to Take Possession of the Property of and Rehabilitate the Bond and Mortgage Guarantee Company. In the Matter of a Plan of Readjustment, etc., of the Rights of the Holders of Investments in a Certain Mortgage Covering Premises 501 Lefferts Avenue, Borough of Brooklyn, City of New York, Guaranteed by Bond and Mortgage Guarantee Company, Guarantee No. 181515. Estelle V. Bloch, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 244
Pages: 747–748

Head Matter:
In the Matter of the Application of The People of the State of New York, by George S. Van Schaick, as Superintendent of Insurance of the State of New York, for an Order to Take Possession of the Property of and Rehabilitate the Bond and Mortgage Guarantee Company. In the Matter of a Plan of Readjustment, etc., of the Rights of the Holders of Investments in a Certain Mortgage Covering Premises 501 Lefferts Avenue, Borough of Brooklyn, City of New York, Guaranteed by Bond and Mortgage Guarantee Company, Guarantee No. 181515. Estelle V. Bloch, Appellant.

Opinion:
Order denying the appellant's application to extend the time of the owner to comply with the provisions of the order approving a plan for readjustment and extension of the mortgage in question reversed on the law and the facts and application granted, without costs. In our opinion, the denial of this application was not a proper exercise of discretion. Lazansky, P. J., Young, Hagarty and Seudder, JJ., concur; Carswell, J., dissents and votes to affirm.