Consumer's Poultry Dealers Corp. v. Podberesky Bros.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Consumer's Poultry Dealers Corp. v. Podberesky Bros.

244 A.D. 754

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

DecidedApril 15, 1935

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 244 A.D. 754 (Consumer's Poultry Dealers Corp. v. Podberesky Bros.) 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

Consumer's Poultry Dealers Corp. v. Podberesky Bros., 244 A.D. 754 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1935).

Pincite

Opinion

Order adjudging judgment debtor, by its secretary and treasurer, guilty of contempt in supplementary proceedings and imposing a fine of $1,533.13 modified by reducing one item in the fine, consisting of the amount of the judgment, from $1,003.13 to $250, thus reducing the total of the fine imposed to $780, and as so modified unanimously affirmed, without costs. The showing with respect to “ actual loss or injury ” resulting “to a party to an action or special proceeding, by reason of the misconduct proved against the offender ’’ was insufficient to justify a fining of the offender the amount of the judgment. The limit of the judgment in respect of that element was $250. The •fine, so far as it related to costs and expenses, was proper. (Judiciary Law, § 773; Weddle v. Grzeczezak, No. 2, 189 App. Div. 493; Matter of Starr v. Morange, 119 Misc. 376; Matter of Schwartz v. Sill, 85 id. 55; Whitman v. Haines, 51 Hun, 640; affd. on opinion of Brady, J., at Special Term, 119 N. Y. 639.) Present1— Lazansky, P. J-, Young, Hagarty, Carswell and Seudder, JJ.

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

Order adjudging judgment debtor, by its secretary and treasurer, guilty of contempt in supplementary proceedings and imposing a fine of $1,533.13 modified by reducing one item in the fine, consisting of the amount of the judgment, from $1,003.13 to $250, thus reducing the total of the fine imposed to $780, and as so modified unanimously affirmed, without costs. The showing with respect to “ actual loss or injury ” resulting “to a party to an action or special proceeding, by reason of the misconduct proved against the offender ’’ was insufficient to justify a fining of the offender the amount of the judgment. The limit of the judgment in respect of that element was $250. The •fine, so far as it related to costs and expenses, was proper. (Judiciary Law, § 773; Weddle v. Grzeczezak, No. 2, 189 App. Div. 493; Matter of Starr v. Morange, 119 Misc. 376; Matter of Schwartz v. Sill, 85 id. 55; Whitman v. Haines, 51 Hun, 640; affd. on opinion of Brady, J., at Special Term, 119 N. Y. 639.) Present1— Lazansky, P. J-, Young, Hagarty, Carswell and Seudder, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

244 A.D. 754, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/consumers-poultry-dealers-corp-v-podberesky-bros-nyappdiv-1935.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack