Ameranglo Corp. v. Krellberg

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Ameranglo Corp. v. Krellberg

142 Misc. 478, 254 N.Y.S. 772, 1932 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 926

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJanuary 8, 1932

StatusPublished

This text of 142 Misc. 478 (Ameranglo Corp. v. Krellberg) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ameranglo Corp. v. Krellberg, 142 Misc. 478, 254 N.Y.S. 772, 1932 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 926 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Section 775 of the Civil Practice Act, authorizing the maintenance of supplementary proceedings, must be read in the light of sections 640-643 of the Civil Practice Act, under the heading “ Requisities of execution,” the last named section providing that “ an execution against property, if the judgment-roll is not filed in the clerk’s office of the county to which it is issued, must [479]*479specify the time when the judgment was docketed in that county.” As there is no provision of the City Court Act applicable, the specific requirements of the present Civil Practice Act referred to control.

Since there was no docketing of the judgment in this case there was no warrant for the institution of the supplementary proceedings.

Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements to be set off. against the judgment, and motion denied.

All concur; present, Lydon, Frankenthaler and Untermyer, JJ.

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

Per Curiam.

Section 775 of the Civil Practice Act, authorizing the maintenance of supplementary proceedings, must be read in the light of sections 640-643 of the Civil Practice Act, under the heading “ Requisities of execution,” the last named section providing that “ an execution against property, if the judgment-roll is not filed in the clerk’s office of the county to which it is issued, must [479]*479specify the time when the judgment was docketed in that county.” As there is no provision of the City Court Act applicable, the specific requirements of the present Civil Practice Act referred to control.

Since there was no docketing of the judgment in this case there was no warrant for the institution of the supplementary proceedings.

Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements to be set off. against the judgment, and motion denied.

All concur; present, Lydon, Frankenthaler and Untermyer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

142 Misc. 478, 254 N.Y.S. 772, 1932 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 926, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ameranglo-corp-v-krellberg-nyappterm-1932.