In re Cooper

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Cooper

265 A.D. 969, 39 N.Y.S.2d 30, 1942 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6780

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

DecidedDecember 30, 1942

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 265 A.D. 969 (In re Cooper) 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

In re Cooper, 265 A.D. 969, 39 N.Y.S.2d 30, 1942 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6780 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1942).

Pincite

Opinion

The lien involved here is a charging lien, and not a retaining lien (Judiciary Law, § 475; Cons. Laws, ch. 30; Matter of Heinsheimer, 214 N. Y. 361, 364, 365; Matter of Sebring, 238 App. Div. 281, 286), and it is asserted against the deposited fund and not against the bank book of which petitioner has possession. This proceeding was properly instituted under the above section of the Judiciary Law. (Matter of Eno, 111 Misc. 69, 73; Entenberg v. Goodman, 153 Misc. 205.) Amy question as to the court’s jurisdiction over appellant is waived on this appeal, and it is immaterial whether his appearance in Special Term was special or general. If the question were open, it would be held that the appearance was general. Lazansky, P. J., Carswell, Johnston, Adel and Taylor, JJ., concur.

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

The lien involved here is a charging lien, and not a retaining lien (Judiciary Law, § 475; Cons. Laws, ch. 30; Matter of Heinsheimer, 214 N. Y. 361, 364, 365; Matter of Sebring, 238 App. Div. 281, 286), and it is asserted against the deposited fund and not against the bank book of which petitioner has possession. This proceeding was properly instituted under the above section of the Judiciary Law. (Matter of Eno, 111 Misc. 69, 73; Entenberg v. Goodman, 153 Misc. 205.) Amy question as to the court’s jurisdiction over appellant is waived on this appeal, and it is immaterial whether his appearance in Special Term was special or general. If the question were open, it would be held that the appearance was general. Lazansky, P. J., Carswell, Johnston, Adel and Taylor, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

265 A.D. 969, 39 N.Y.S.2d 30, 1942 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6780, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-cooper-nyappdiv-1942.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack