Sainberg v. Weinberg

City of New York Municipal Court

Sainberg v. Weinberg

54 N.Y.S. 559

DecidedNovember 18, 1898

StatusPublished

This text of 54 N.Y.S. 559 (Sainberg v. Weinberg) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering City of New York Municipal Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Sainberg v. Weinberg, 54 N.Y.S. 559 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1898).

Pincite

Opinion

O’DWYER, J.

The record upon the appeal of the judgment debtor -discloses the fact that the receiver was in possession of the business, .given possession thereof by the judgment debtor; who was at the time in possession and control of said business, and that subsequently the judgment debtor interfered with that possession. This interference with the receiver in his possession of the property was a contempt, .and, after a careful examination of the proofs submitted to the court below, we are satisfied that the order was fully justified, the punishment imposed richly merited, and that the order, so far as it affects this appellant, Weinberg, should be affirmed, with costs.

A careful examination of the record upon the appeal of Mr. Elias •does not disclose to our satisfaction such an interference with the rights of the receiver as to amount to a contempt, and justify the order adjudging him guilty thereof. It follows that so much of the order appealed from as affects M. Angelo Elias should be reversed, with costs.

CONLAN, J., concurs.

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

O’DWYER, J.

The record upon the appeal of the judgment debtor -discloses the fact that the receiver was in possession of the business, .given possession thereof by the judgment debtor; who was at the time in possession and control of said business, and that subsequently the judgment debtor interfered with that possession. This interference with the receiver in his possession of the property was a contempt, .and, after a careful examination of the proofs submitted to the court below, we are satisfied that the order was fully justified, the punishment imposed richly merited, and that the order, so far as it affects this appellant, Weinberg, should be affirmed, with costs.

A careful examination of the record upon the appeal of Mr. Elias •does not disclose to our satisfaction such an interference with the rights of the receiver as to amount to a contempt, and justify the order adjudging him guilty thereof. It follows that so much of the order appealed from as affects M. Angelo Elias should be reversed, with costs.

CONLAN, J., concurs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

54 N.Y.S. 559, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sainberg-v-weinberg-nynyccityct-1898.