Frank v. Balog

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Frank v. Balog

272 A.D.2d 941

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

DecidedJune 30, 1947

StatusPublished

This text of 272 A.D.2d 941 (Frank v. Balog) 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

Frank v. Balog, 272 A.D.2d 941 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1947).

Pincite

Opinion

Order granting application for a warrant of attachment pursuant to subdivision 2 of section 406 of the Civil Practice Act affirmed, without costs. Pursuant to Local Law No. 3 of 1938 of the City of Yonkers, the Common Council of the City of Yonkers authorized an investigation into the affairs of that city by a committee of four members, and authorized subpoenas of the committee to be subscribed by the chairman of the committee and by the city clerk. A subpoena in the form prescribed by the resolution was duly served on appellant, directing him to appear before it to testify in the investigation. Appellant failed to appear. The application for a warrant of attachment under subdivision 2 of section 406 of the Civil Practice Act followed. The subpoena was properly issued. (Matter of Smith v. Kern, 285 N. Y. 632.) Lewis, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell, Johnston and Adel, JJ., concur. [189 Misc. 1016.]

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

Order granting application for a warrant of attachment pursuant to subdivision 2 of section 406 of the Civil Practice Act affirmed, without costs. Pursuant to Local Law No. 3 of 1938 of the City of Yonkers, the Common Council of the City of Yonkers authorized an investigation into the affairs of that city by a committee of four members, and authorized subpoenas of the committee to be subscribed by the chairman of the committee and by the city clerk. A subpoena in the form prescribed by the resolution was duly served on appellant, directing him to appear before it to testify in the investigation. Appellant failed to appear. The application for a warrant of attachment under subdivision 2 of section 406 of the Civil Practice Act followed. The subpoena was properly issued. (Matter of Smith v. Kern, 285 N. Y. 632.) Lewis, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell, Johnston and Adel, JJ., concur. [189 Misc. 1016.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

272 A.D.2d 941, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/frank-v-balog-nyappdiv-1947.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack