A & B Home Improvement Corp. v. Artz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

A & B Home Improvement Corp. v. Artz

19 A.D.2d 605, 240 N.Y.S.2d 998, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3581

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJune 18, 1963

StatusPublished

This text of 19 A.D.2d 605 (A & B Home Improvement Corp. v. Artz) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

A & B Home Improvement Corp. v. Artz, 19 A.D.2d 605, 240 N.Y.S.2d 998, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3581 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, entered on March 28,1962, denying motion to cancel and discharge plaintiff’s judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Special Term denied defendant’s application upon the ground that the relief sought was precluded by the -determinations in the prior proceedings between the parties. The situation presented was entirely different from that which had appeared before and the earlier determinations do not govern or control the determination here. The question now presented is whether the after-acquired judgment can he set off [606]*606against plaintiff’s judgment -against defendant. Ordinarily this could be done, but here there are intervening rights of persons claiming liens against the judgment. Before the matter can be determined, these parties — the attorney who represented the plaintiff and the Federal Government, which filed a lien for -taxes — would have a right to be heard. Decision here is without prejudice to further proceedings for the same relief in. which these persons are made parties. Concur — Botein, P. J., McNally, Stevens, Eager and Steuer, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Order, entered on March 28,1962, denying motion to cancel and discharge plaintiff’s judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Special Term denied defendant’s application upon the ground that the relief sought was precluded by the -determinations in the prior proceedings between the parties. The situation presented was entirely different from that which had appeared before and the earlier determinations do not govern or control the determination here. The question now presented is whether the after-acquired judgment can he set off [606]*606against plaintiff’s judgment -against defendant. Ordinarily this could be done, but here there are intervening rights of persons claiming liens against the judgment. Before the matter can be determined, these parties — the attorney who represented the plaintiff and the Federal Government, which filed a lien for -taxes — would have a right to be heard. Decision here is without prejudice to further proceedings for the same relief in. which these persons are made parties. Concur — Botein, P. J., McNally, Stevens, Eager and Steuer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 A.D.2d 605, 240 N.Y.S.2d 998, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3581, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/a-b-home-improvement-corp-v-artz-nyappdiv-1963.