Omaha Cold Storage Co. v. Chas. H. Nolte, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Omaha Cold Storage Co. v. Chas. H. Nolte, Inc.

264 A.D. 740, 34 N.Y.S.2d 433, 1942 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4455

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

DecidedApril 27, 1942

StatusPublished

This text of 264 A.D. 740 (Omaha Cold Storage Co. v. Chas. H. Nolte, Inc.) 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

Omaha Cold Storage Co. v. Chas. H. Nolte, Inc., 264 A.D. 740, 34 N.Y.S.2d 433, 1942 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4455 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1942).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order granting a motion by a witness, directed to appear pursuant to a subpoena duces tecum issued in proceedings supplementary to judgment under section 782 of the Civil Practice Act. The purpose of the subpoena was to examine the witness to ascertain if he knew anything with respect of property of the judgment debtor and was not for the purpose of ascertaining if he had any property of the judgment debtor execeding ten dollars in value, as provided by section 779 of the Civil Practice Act, which the Special Term believed was the basis upon which the subpoena duces tecum was issued. Furthermore, the witness entered into a stipulation adjourning his examination prior to the return day. Order reversed on the law, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion to vacate denied, with ten dollars costs, the examination to proceed on five days’ notice. Lazansky, P. J., Carswell, Johnston, Adel and Taylor, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal from an order granting a motion by a witness, directed to appear pursuant to a subpoena duces tecum issued in proceedings supplementary to judgment under section 782 of the Civil Practice Act. The purpose of the subpoena was to examine the witness to ascertain if he knew anything with respect of property of the judgment debtor and was not for the purpose of ascertaining if he had any property of the judgment debtor execeding ten dollars in value, as provided by section 779 of the Civil Practice Act, which the Special Term believed was the basis upon which the subpoena duces tecum was issued. Furthermore, the witness entered into a stipulation adjourning his examination prior to the return day. Order reversed on the law, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion to vacate denied, with ten dollars costs, the examination to proceed on five days’ notice. Lazansky, P. J., Carswell, Johnston, Adel and Taylor, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

264 A.D. 740, 34 N.Y.S.2d 433, 1942 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4455, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/omaha-cold-storage-co-v-chas-h-nolte-inc-nyappdiv-1942.