Schaefer v. Schaefer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Schaefer v. Schaefer

54 A.D.2d 943, 388 N.Y.S.2d 342, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14825

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

DecidedNovember 15, 1976

StatusPublished

This text of 54 A.D.2d 943 (Schaefer v. Schaefer) 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

Schaefer v. Schaefer, 54 A.D.2d 943, 388 N.Y.S.2d 342, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14825 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

In a matrimonial action in which a judgment for arrears was entered against defendant, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated March 11, 1976, which, inter alia, granted defendant’s motion to stay the Sheriff of Nassau County from selling certain real property to enforce the said judgment, pending the determination of an action by plaintiff to set aside the allegedly fraudulent conveyances of the said property. Order affirmed, without costs or disbursements. Special Term did not abuse its discretion in staying the sale of the property (see CPLR 2201). If the conveyances of the property by defendant are ultimately set aside, the land is available for sale. It appears that defendant had no interest in the land on the date of the levy. Martuscello, Acting P. J., Latham, Margett, Damiani and Titone, JJ., concur.

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

In a matrimonial action in which a judgment for arrears was entered against defendant, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated March 11, 1976, which, inter alia, granted defendant’s motion to stay the Sheriff of Nassau County from selling certain real property to enforce the said judgment, pending the determination of an action by plaintiff to set aside the allegedly fraudulent conveyances of the said property. Order affirmed, without costs or disbursements. Special Term did not abuse its discretion in staying the sale of the property (see CPLR 2201). If the conveyances of the property by defendant are ultimately set aside, the land is available for sale. It appears that defendant had no interest in the land on the date of the levy. Martuscello, Acting P. J., Latham, Margett, Damiani and Titone, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

54 A.D.2d 943, 388 N.Y.S.2d 342, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14825, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schaefer-v-schaefer-nyappdiv-1976.