Rosenberg v. Rosenberg

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rosenberg v. Rosenberg

52 A.D.2d 623, 382 N.Y.S.2d 354, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12253

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

DecidedApril 19, 1976

StatusPublished

This text of 52 A.D.2d 623 (Rosenberg v. Rosenberg) 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

Rosenberg v. Rosenberg, 52 A.D.2d 623, 382 N.Y.S.2d 354, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12253 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action upon a wage deduction order, commenced by a summons and motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint, defendants appeal from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, dated December 23, 1975, which, inter alia, granted the motion and (2) a judgment of the same court, entered thereon on December 29, 1975. Order and judgment affirmed, with one bill of $50 costs and disbursements. We hold that a wage deduction order, issued pursuant to section 49-b of the Personal Property Law in aid of a final judgment, should be deemed "an instrument for the payment of money only”, within the purview of CPLR 3213. Hopkins, Acting P. J., Margett, Damiani and Rabin, JJ., concur.

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

In an action upon a wage deduction order, commenced by a summons and motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint, defendants appeal from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, dated December 23, 1975, which, inter alia, granted the motion and (2) a judgment of the same court, entered thereon on December 29, 1975. Order and judgment affirmed, with one bill of $50 costs and disbursements. We hold that a wage deduction order, issued pursuant to section 49-b of the Personal Property Law in aid of a final judgment, should be deemed "an instrument for the payment of money only”, within the purview of CPLR 3213. Hopkins, Acting P. J., Margett, Damiani and Rabin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

52 A.D.2d 623, 382 N.Y.S.2d 354, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12253, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rosenberg-v-rosenberg-nyappdiv-1976.