Hurwitz v. Bernstein

156 A.D. 913
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided April 15, 1913·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

The title to the property being in dispute, its ownership can only be ascertained in a proceeding instituted by the receiver. The debtor cannot be punished for a criminal contempt upon a motion, even though the affidavits presented to the judge tend to establish that the evidence given by him relating to such ownership is untrue. The order must, therefore, be reversed. Order of the County Court of Kings county.reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion denied, without costs. Jenks, P. J., Thomas, Carr, Rich and Stapleton, JJ., concurred.

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

Hurwitz v. Bernstein, 156 A.D. 913 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1913).

156 A.D. 913 (Hurwitz v. Bernstein) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Ferguson v. Perk
138 Misc. 326 (City of New York Municipal Court, 1930)
Silberman Dairy Co. v. Econopouly
177 A.D. 97 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1917)
Protter v. Lovell
91 Misc. 417 (New York County Courts, 1915)