Mengel v. Larkin

230 A.D. 783
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedSeptember 15, 1930
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 230 A.D. 783 (Mengel v. Larkin) 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
Mengel v. Larkin, 230 A.D. 783 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1930).

Opinion

Order adjudging judgment debtor guilty of a criminal contempt and confirming report of official referee reversed upon the law and the facts, with costs, motion denied, without costs, and fine remitted. The admission of the testimony of the witness Wesselhoft was erroneous. He was not employed at the bank in question when appellant cashed the cheek, and had no personal knowledge of the time when the check was cashed. His testimony was based upon records in the bank. (See Saldan Construction Co., Inc., v. Kasenetz, 225 App. Div. 819.) Furthermore the respondent did not sustain the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant willfully refused to obey the court’s mandate. (Matter of Elias, 40 App. Div. 632; Saal v. South [784]*784Brooklyn Railway Co., 122 id. 364.) The order appealed from is also defective in that it does not recite that “ the conduct of the party has been such as to defeat, impair, impede or prejudice the right or remedy of the other party to the proceeding.” (Feinberg v. Kutcosky, 147 App. Div. 393.) (See, also, Judiciary Law, § 770, and cases cited.) Lazansky, P. J., Rich, Young, Seudder and Tompkins, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Goodman v. Schached
144 Misc. 905 (New York County Courts, 1932)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
230 A.D. 783, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mengel-v-larkin-nyappdiv-1930.