O'Brien v. Forstner

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

O'Brien v. Forstner

248 A.D. 602

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

DecidedMay 15, 1936

StatusPublished

This text of 248 A.D. 602 (O'Brien v. Forstner) 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

O'Brien v. Forstner, 248 A.D. 602 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

Order denying appellant’s motion for a change of venue from Westchester county to Bronx county, in an action, by a receiver in supplementary proceedings, to enforce rights under a judgment against a debtor or his estate, affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. The pleadings disclose that there is no issue of fact that involves a determination of a claim to real property within the meaning of section 183, subdivision 5, of the Civil Practice Act. The only issue is one that arises on the answer and concerns the validity or invalidity of a judgment for a sum of money, which latter issue is the real subject of the action, as a consequence of the state of the pleadings. Hagarty, Carswell, Davis and Johnston, JJ., concur; Lazansky, P. J., concurs in result.

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

Order denying appellant’s motion for a change of venue from Westchester county to Bronx county, in an action, by a receiver in supplementary proceedings, to enforce rights under a judgment against a debtor or his estate, affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. The pleadings disclose that there is no issue of fact that involves a determination of a claim to real property within the meaning of section 183, subdivision 5, of the Civil Practice Act. The only issue is one that arises on the answer and concerns the validity or invalidity of a judgment for a sum of money, which latter issue is the real subject of the action, as a consequence of the state of the pleadings. Hagarty, Carswell, Davis and Johnston, JJ., concur; Lazansky, P. J., concurs in result.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

248 A.D. 602, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/obrien-v-forstner-nyappdiv-1936.