Case Name: James Vangellow and Spiros Vangellow, Doing Business under the Assumed Name of General Store Fixtures Company, Respondents, v. Steve Rutyna, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1941-11-19
Citations: 263 A.D. 796
Docket Number: 
Parties: James Vangellow and Spiros Vangellow, Doing Business under the Assumed Name of General Store Fixtures Company, Respondents, v. Steve Rutyna, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 263
Pages: 796–796

Head Matter:
James Vangellow and Spiros Vangellow, Doing Business under the Assumed Name of General Store Fixtures Company, Respondents, v. Steve Rutyna, Appellant.

Opinion:
Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. All concur, except Harris, J., who dissents and votes for reversal and for dismissal of the complaint on the ground that the articles offered for sale at the time of the sale were not all at the place where the notice said they would be sold and the notice gave no location of any of the articles different from that of the place of sale as noticed. (Pers. Prop. Law, § 79 and following sections; Shimer v. Mosher, 39 Hun, 153; Strickland v. Hare & Chase, Inc., 217 App. Div. 196; Manhattan Taxi Service Corp. v. Checker Cab Mfg. Corp., 226 id. 624; modfd., 253 N. Y. 455.) (The judgment affirms a judgment of the Rochester City Court in favor of plaintiff in an action for deficiency in conditional contract foreclosure. The order is the order of affirmance.) Present — Crosby, P. J., Taylor, Dowling, Harris and McCum, JJ.