Maida v. Maida

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Maida v. Maida

242 A.D. 782, 275 N.Y.S. 348

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

DecidedOctober 15, 1934

StatusPublished

This text of 242 A.D. 782 (Maida v. Maida) 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

Maida v. Maida, 242 A.D. 782, 275 N.Y.S. 348 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1934).

Pincite

Opinion

Order denying motion to vacate order of arrest affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. No opinion. Lazansky, P. J., Kapper, Hagarty, Carswell and Davis, JJ., concur. George C. Manning, Jr., as Receiver of the Property of Harry Drapkin, Judgment Debtor, Respondent, v. Annie Drapkin, Appellant.— Order reversed on the law, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion to punish defendant for contempt denied, with ten dollars costs. In our opinion, the plaintiff in this action, as receiver in supplementary proceedings of a judgment debtor, is not an officer of the court within the meaning of section 505, subdivision 4, of the Civil Practice Act. (General Electric Co. v. Sire, 88 App. Div. 498; Cowen v. Gruber, 176 id. 905; Matter of Hess, 48 Hun, 586.) Lazansky, P. J., Young, Carswell, Seudder and Tompkins, JJ., concur. (See ante, p. 778.)

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

Order denying motion to vacate order of arrest affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. No opinion. Lazansky, P. J., Kapper, Hagarty, Carswell and Davis, JJ., concur. George C. Manning, Jr., as Receiver of the Property of Harry Drapkin, Judgment Debtor, Respondent, v. Annie Drapkin, Appellant.— Order reversed on the law, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion to punish defendant for contempt denied, with ten dollars costs. In our opinion, the plaintiff in this action, as receiver in supplementary proceedings of a judgment debtor, is not an officer of the court within the meaning of section 505, subdivision 4, of the Civil Practice Act. (General Electric Co. v. Sire, 88 App. Div. 498; Cowen v. Gruber, 176 id. 905; Matter of Hess, 48 Hun, 586.) Lazansky, P. J., Young, Carswell, Seudder and Tompkins, JJ., concur. (See ante, p. 778.)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

242 A.D. 782, 275 N.Y.S. 348, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/maida-v-maida-nyappdiv-1934.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack