Baldwin Kitchen Cabinet Corp. v. Artz

15 A.D.2d 560, 222 N.Y.S.2d 950, 1961 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6871
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 27, 1961·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

The said last provision of the order, which directs the cancellation of the New York County judgment, is not authorized by the provisions of section 530 of the Civil Practice Act or section 20 of the Lien Law; nor do we find any authority, statutory or otherwise, which sanctions the procedure adopted or the order made. If, on the facts presented, the owner is entitled to any relief with respect to said judgment, he should seek it in the action in New York County, and not in any collateral action or proceeding (see 1 Freeman, Judgments [5th ed.], § 305; Crouse v. McVickar, 207 N. Y. 213, 217-218; Knickerbocker Trust Co. V. Oneonta, Cooperstown & Richfield Springs My. Co., 201 N. Y. 379, 384). Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Christ, Pette and Brennan, JJ., concur.

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

Baldwin Kitchen Cabinet Corp. v. Artz, 15 A.D.2d 560, 222 N.Y.S.2d 950, 1961 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6871 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1961).

15 A.D.2d 560 (Baldwin Kitchen Cabinet Corp. v. Artz) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Chestnut Hill Real Estate v. Contractors Casualty & Surety Co.
280 A.D.2d 446 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
Ingalls Iron Works Company v. Fehlhaber Corporation
337 F. Supp. 1085 (S.D. New York, 1972)