Mittman v. Mittman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mittman v. Mittman

33 A.D.2d 573, 305 N.Y.S.2d 519, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3092

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 20, 1969·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

• — ■ Appeal by plaintiff from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated March 3, 1969, which granted the motion of Jean Mittman, a judgment creditor of defendant, to vacate a confession of judgment entered in the office of the County Clerk of Kings County in the sum of $15,005 in favor of plaintiff against defendant, on the ground that said "judgment was in fraud of creditors. Order reversed, on the law and in the exercise of discretion, without costs, and case remitted to Special Term for a hearing and a. new determination, as herein • indicated. The findings of fact below have not been affirmed. In our opinion the confession of judgment' was sufficiently detailed and definite to meet the requirements of CPBR 3218. In view of the conflicting affidavits and supporting proof, it should not have been held void as in fraud of creditors without a hearing; and a plenary hearing should be held so that all the facts may be adduced and evaluated (Albert v. Wender, 19 A D 2d 737). Brennan, Acting P. J., Hopkins, Benjamin, Munder and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur,

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

• — ■ Appeal by plaintiff from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated March 3, 1969, which granted the motion of Jean Mittman, a judgment creditor of defendant, to vacate a confession of judgment entered in the office of the County Clerk of Kings County in the sum of $15,005 in favor of plaintiff against defendant, on the ground that said "judgment was in fraud of creditors. Order reversed, on the law and in the exercise of discretion, without costs, and case remitted to Special Term for a hearing and a. new determination, as herein • indicated. The findings of fact below have not been affirmed. In our opinion the confession of judgment' was sufficiently detailed and definite to meet the requirements of CPBR 3218. In view of the conflicting affidavits and supporting proof, it should not have been held void as in fraud of creditors without a hearing; and a plenary hearing should be held so that all the facts may be adduced and evaluated (Albert v. Wender, 19 A D 2d 737). Brennan, Acting P. J., Hopkins, Benjamin, Munder and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur,

Mittman v. Mittman, 33 A.D.2d 573, 305 N.Y.S.2d 519, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3092 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

33 A.D.2d 573 (Mittman v. Mittman) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related