Public Operating Corp. v. Weingart

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Public Operating Corp. v. Weingart

255 A.D. 443, 7 N.Y.S.2d 827, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4771

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

DecidedDecember 2, 1938

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 255 A.D. 443 (Public Operating Corp. v. Weingart) 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

Public Operating Corp. v. Weingart, 255 A.D. 443, 7 N.Y.S.2d 827, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4771 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1938).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Plaintiff’s apparent purpose in seeking the inventory is to lay a foundation for the recovery of damages in another action for the detention or depreciation of the chattels during the period of the appeal in the event of an affirmance of the judgment. There was no authority in the Special Term to grant the order for such purpose. In any event, the court had no power to make an order in the action after the entry of the final judgment, except for the purpose of carrying the judgment into effect or to correct or vacate it. (Herpe v. Herpe, 225 N. Y. 323, 327; Williamsburgh Savings Bank v. Bernstein, 277 id. 11, 16; Matter of Ungrich, 201 id. 415.)

The order should be reversed, with twenty dollars costs and disbursements, and the motion denied.

Present — Martin, P. J., O’Malley, Townley, Dore and Cohn, JJ.

Order unanimously reversed, with twenty dollars costs and disbursements, and motion denied.

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

Per Curiam.

Plaintiff’s apparent purpose in seeking the inventory is to lay a foundation for the recovery of damages in another action for the detention or depreciation of the chattels during the period of the appeal in the event of an affirmance of the judgment. There was no authority in the Special Term to grant the order for such purpose. In any event, the court had no power to make an order in the action after the entry of the final judgment, except for the purpose of carrying the judgment into effect or to correct or vacate it. (Herpe v. Herpe, 225 N. Y. 323, 327; Williamsburgh Savings Bank v. Bernstein, 277 id. 11, 16; Matter of Ungrich, 201 id. 415.)

The order should be reversed, with twenty dollars costs and disbursements, and the motion denied.

Present — Martin, P. J., O’Malley, Townley, Dore and Cohn, JJ.

Order unanimously reversed, with twenty dollars costs and disbursements, and motion denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

255 A.D. 443, 7 N.Y.S.2d 827, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4771, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/public-operating-corp-v-weingart-nyappdiv-1938.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack