Bagarozy v. Callas

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bagarozy v. Callas

3 A.D.2d 904, 162 N.Y.S.2d 713, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5385

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

DecidedMay 21, 1957

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 3 A.D.2d 904 (Bagarozy v. Callas) 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

Bagarozy v. Callas, 3 A.D.2d 904, 162 N.Y.S.2d 713, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5385 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1957).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously reversed and the motion to set aside and vacate the ex parte order directing the examination of the third-party appellant-respondent granted, with $20 costs and disbursements to the third-party appellant, and the cross appeal of plaintiffs, having become moot, hereby is dismissed. On these papers there is no showing that there is reason to suspect that the third party has made an untrue certificate or failed fully to set forth the facts required to be shown by section 918 of the Civil Practice Act. The statute does not authorize examinations in order to provide information for the making of a new and better levy. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, Frank, Valente and McNally, JJ.

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

Order unanimously reversed and the motion to set aside and vacate the ex parte order directing the examination of the third-party appellant-respondent granted, with $20 costs and disbursements to the third-party appellant, and the cross appeal of plaintiffs, having become moot, hereby is dismissed. On these papers there is no showing that there is reason to suspect that the third party has made an untrue certificate or failed fully to set forth the facts required to be shown by section 918 of the Civil Practice Act. The statute does not authorize examinations in order to provide information for the making of a new and better levy. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, Frank, Valente and McNally, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 A.D.2d 904, 162 N.Y.S.2d 713, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5385, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bagarozy-v-callas-nyappdiv-1957.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack