Goldberger v. Tack

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Goldberger v. Tack

108 N.Y.S. 1047

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedMarch 5, 1908

StatusPublished

This text of 108 N.Y.S. 1047 (Goldberger v. Tack) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Goldberger v. Tack, 108 N.Y.S. 1047 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1908).

Pincite

Opinion

MacEEAN, J.

To relieve the defendant, judgment debtor, from the contempt in which he has been held by the court below for violation of an order, heretofore served upon him, forbidding him to dispose “of the property belonging to him not exempt by law from execution, or in any manner to interfere therewith, until further order in the premises,” it should appear that the moneys received and disbursed by him subsequent to the restraining order served upon him were exempt from restraint under the provisions of section 2463, Code of Civil Procedure. The testimony of the defendant debtor himself does not disclose that said moneys were earned for personal services, and so he was rightly held to be in contempt. Mulford v. Gibbs, 9 App. Div. 490, 41 N. Y. Supp. 273; Id., 13 App. Div. 624, 42 N. Y. Supp. 1129, which was affirmed without opinion in 153 N. Y. 656, 47 N. E. 1109.

Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. All concur.

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

MacEEAN, J.

To relieve the defendant, judgment debtor, from the contempt in which he has been held by the court below for violation of an order, heretofore served upon him, forbidding him to dispose “of the property belonging to him not exempt by law from execution, or in any manner to interfere therewith, until further order in the premises,” it should appear that the moneys received and disbursed by him subsequent to the restraining order served upon him were exempt from restraint under the provisions of section 2463, Code of Civil Procedure. The testimony of the defendant debtor himself does not disclose that said moneys were earned for personal services, and so he was rightly held to be in contempt. Mulford v. Gibbs, 9 App. Div. 490, 41 N. Y. Supp. 273; Id., 13 App. Div. 624, 42 N. Y. Supp. 1129, which was affirmed without opinion in 153 N. Y. 656, 47 N. E. 1109.

Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

108 N.Y.S. 1047, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goldberger-v-tack-nyappterm-1908.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack