Fishman v. Sanders

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Fishman v. Sanders

20 A.D.2d 905, 248 N.Y.S.2d 1013, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4029

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

DecidedApril 13, 1964

StatusPublished

This text of 20 A.D.2d 905 (Fishman v. Sanders) 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

Fishman v. Sanders, 20 A.D.2d 905, 248 N.Y.S.2d 1013, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4029 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action, commenced by attachment of defendant’s property and service of process by publication, and in which a default judgment had been entered in plaintiffs’ favor against the defendant in personam, plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated October 7, 1963, which granted a motion by the defendant (appearing specially) to vacate said judgment insofar as it was against him personally and declared said judgment to he one in rem and not in personam. Order affirmed, without costs. The statutory requirement of levy under a warrant of attachment serves, even as to an absent resident, to limit satisfaction of the judgment to the attached property, as in the case of a nonresident. Otherwise there would be no reason for the attachment as a prerequisite to an order for service by publication. [For prior appeals, see 13 A D 2d 993 and 18 A D 2d 689.] Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Kleinfeld, Hill and Rabin, JJ., concur.

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

In a negligence action, commenced by attachment of defendant’s property and service of process by publication, and in which a default judgment had been entered in plaintiffs’ favor against the defendant in personam, plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated October 7, 1963, which granted a motion by the defendant (appearing specially) to vacate said judgment insofar as it was against him personally and declared said judgment to he one in rem and not in personam. Order affirmed, without costs. The statutory requirement of levy under a warrant of attachment serves, even as to an absent resident, to limit satisfaction of the judgment to the attached property, as in the case of a nonresident. Otherwise there would be no reason for the attachment as a prerequisite to an order for service by publication. [For prior appeals, see 13 A D 2d 993 and 18 A D 2d 689.] Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Kleinfeld, Hill and Rabin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

20 A.D.2d 905, 248 N.Y.S.2d 1013, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4029, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fishman-v-sanders-nyappdiv-1964.