In re the Supplementary Proceedings v. Glenny
This text of 54 Misc. 36 (In re the Supplementary Proceedings v. Glenny) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
It is conceded by the attorney for the judgment creditor that no orders have been entered upon the decisions dismissing the two former orders for the judgment debtor’s examination. While the failure to enter such orders may not formerly have been a valid objection to the third order, which is now sought to be vacated on the [37]*37ground of the pendency of the prior proceedings (Shults v. Andrews, 54 How. Pr. 380), under the present practice (Code Civ. Pro., § 2454) the proceedings can only he discontinued or dismissed by an order. Rothschild v. Gould, 84 App. Div. 196; Riddle & Bullard Supp. Pro. (3d ed.) 172 et seq. Since such orders were not entered new proceedings could not be instituted. Gaylord v. Jones, 7 Hun, 480; Keiher v. Shipherd, 16 Civ. Pro. 183, and cases there cited; Riddle & Bullard Supp. Pro. (3d ed.) 484. The last order obtained for the defendant’s examination must therefore be vacated.
Motion granted, without costs.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
54 Misc. 36, 103 N.Y.S. 499, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-supplementary-proceedings-v-glenny-nysupct-1907.