Collins v. Dutton

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Collins v. Dutton

19 A.D.2d 740, 242 N.Y.S.2d 1018, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3330

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

DecidedJuly 8, 1963

StatusPublished

This text of 19 A.D.2d 740 (Collins v. Dutton) 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

Collins v. Dutton, 19 A.D.2d 740, 242 N.Y.S.2d 1018, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3330 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding supplementary to judgment, the third party, First National City Bank, appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, entered April 5, 1963 on reargument, made pursuant to statute (Civ. Prac. Act, i; 794, suibd. 2), which granted the judgment creditor’s motion: (a) to direct tiio bank to pay her (the movant) the credit balance of $14,517.02, plus accrued interest, in a savings account at the bank maintained by the judgment debtor in his name; and (lb) to direct that the order be docketed ns a judgment (such order being thereafter docketed as a judgment on April 12, 1963). Order affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Kleinfeld, Acting P. J., Christ, Hill and Raibin, JJ., concur; Brennan, J., dissents and votes to modify the order as indicated in the following memorandum: In my opinion, the liability of the bank to pay the amount demanded should be conditioned upon the judgment creditor producing’ [741]*741the passbook or filing an undertaking for twice the amount to save the bank harmless. The Special Term should have taken cognizance of the limitation upon withdrawals or payments contained in the contract between the bank and its depositor, to which the account was subject (cf. Yonkers-Cameo v. Liossatos, 262 App. Div. 996; Elvira Apts. v. Kidd, 259 App. Div. 874).

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

In a proceeding supplementary to judgment, the third party, First National City Bank, appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, entered April 5, 1963 on reargument, made pursuant to statute (Civ. Prac. Act, i; 794, suibd. 2), which granted the judgment creditor’s motion: (a) to direct tiio bank to pay her (the movant) the credit balance of $14,517.02, plus accrued interest, in a savings account at the bank maintained by the judgment debtor in his name; and (lb) to direct that the order be docketed ns a judgment (such order being thereafter docketed as a judgment on April 12, 1963). Order affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Kleinfeld, Acting P. J., Christ, Hill and Raibin, JJ., concur; Brennan, J., dissents and votes to modify the order as indicated in the following memorandum: In my opinion, the liability of the bank to pay the amount demanded should be conditioned upon the judgment creditor producing’ [741]*741the passbook or filing an undertaking for twice the amount to save the bank harmless. The Special Term should have taken cognizance of the limitation upon withdrawals or payments contained in the contract between the bank and its depositor, to which the account was subject (cf. Yonkers-Cameo v. Liossatos, 262 App. Div. 996; Elvira Apts. v. Kidd, 259 App. Div. 874).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 A.D.2d 740, 242 N.Y.S.2d 1018, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3330, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/collins-v-dutton-nyappdiv-1963.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack