Martz v. Cohen

City of New York Municipal Court

Martz v. Cohen

145 Misc. 284, 259 N.Y.S. 302, 1931 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1020

DecidedDecember 4, 1931

StatusPublished

This text of 145 Misc. 284 (Martz v. Cohen) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering City of New York Municipal Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Martz v. Cohen, 145 Misc. 284, 259 N.Y.S. 302, 1931 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1020 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

Ryan, J.

Motion to vacate order in supplementary proceedings, dated October 1, 1931, and all proceedings and orders based thereon, is granted. The order is jurisdietionally defective in that the affidavit upon which it is based fails to allege, as required by section 780 of the Civil Practice Act, that the debtor has property which he unjustly refuses to apply toward the satisfaction of the judgment, (Matter of Smith v. Haverty’s Stables, 157 App. Div. 777.) Nor is there allegation that any demand for the application of his property was made upon the debtor, (Friedlander v. Lehman, 101 N. Y. Supp. 252.) The order also improperly required the debtor to appear for examination in a county other than the one in which he resided or had a place for the transaction of business. Order filed.

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

Ryan, J.

Motion to vacate order in supplementary proceedings, dated October 1, 1931, and all proceedings and orders based thereon, is granted. The order is jurisdietionally defective in that the affidavit upon which it is based fails to allege, as required by section 780 of the Civil Practice Act, that the debtor has property which he unjustly refuses to apply toward the satisfaction of the judgment, (Matter of Smith v. Haverty’s Stables, 157 App. Div. 777.) Nor is there allegation that any demand for the application of his property was made upon the debtor, (Friedlander v. Lehman, 101 N. Y. Supp. 252.) The order also improperly required the debtor to appear for examination in a county other than the one in which he resided or had a place for the transaction of business. Order filed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

145 Misc. 284, 259 N.Y.S. 302, 1931 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1020, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/martz-v-cohen-nynyccityct-1931.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack