Chopak v. Marcus

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Chopak v. Marcus

22 A.D.2d 825, 255 N.Y.S.2d 277, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2697

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

DecidedNovember 30, 1964

StatusPublished

This text of 22 A.D.2d 825 (Chopak v. Marcus) 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

Chopak v. Marcus, 22 A.D.2d 825, 255 N.Y.S.2d 277, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2697 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover money loaned and interest, in which the plaintiff recovered a judgment against the defendant Joseph Marcus in the Civil Court of the City of Flew York, and thereafter, as judgment creditor, issued and served a purported subpoena upon Hayes Development, Inc., calling for its examination as a- third party with respect to any property of the judgment debtor in its possession (cf. CPLR 5223, 5224), the plaintiff, pursuant to leave granted by this court, appeals from an order of the Appellate Term of the Supreme Court, dated April 27, 1964, which affirmed an order of the said Civil Court, entered FTovember 1, 1963, denying his motion to punish Hayes Development. Inc., for contempt by reason of [826]*826its failure to obey said subpoena. Order of the Appellate Term affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. ‘The plaintiff, who is not an attorney and who appeared in propria persona, is not a person authorized to issue a subpoena without a court order (CPLR 2302, subd. [a]; cf. Schwartz v. Shapiro, 91 N. Y. S. 2d 771). Ughetta, Acting P. J., Christ, Brennan, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover money loaned and interest, in which the plaintiff recovered a judgment against the defendant Joseph Marcus in the Civil Court of the City of Flew York, and thereafter, as judgment creditor, issued and served a purported subpoena upon Hayes Development, Inc., calling for its examination as a- third party with respect to any property of the judgment debtor in its possession (cf. CPLR 5223, 5224), the plaintiff, pursuant to leave granted by this court, appeals from an order of the Appellate Term of the Supreme Court, dated April 27, 1964, which affirmed an order of the said Civil Court, entered FTovember 1, 1963, denying his motion to punish Hayes Development. Inc., for contempt by reason of [826]*826its failure to obey said subpoena. Order of the Appellate Term affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. ‘The plaintiff, who is not an attorney and who appeared in propria persona, is not a person authorized to issue a subpoena without a court order (CPLR 2302, subd. [a]; cf. Schwartz v. Shapiro, 91 N. Y. S. 2d 771). Ughetta, Acting P. J., Christ, Brennan, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

22 A.D.2d 825, 255 N.Y.S.2d 277, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2697, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chopak-v-marcus-nyappdiv-1964.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack