Shapiro v. Shapiro

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Shapiro v. Shapiro

240 A.D. 730

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

DecidedJune 15, 1933

StatusPublished

This text of 240 A.D. 730 (Shapiro v. Shapiro) 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

Shapiro v. Shapiro, 240 A.D. 730 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

Order granting motion to vacate appointment of receiver affirmed, with ten dollars [731]*731costs and disbursements. The court was without power to appoint a receiver in this proceeding for the reasons: (1) There is no proof that proceedings supplementary to execution under article 45 of the Civil Practice Act had been instituted or were pending at the time the order was made; (2) the record does not show that the judgment creditor was entitled to maintain supplementary proceedings, there being no proof that an execution had been issued or returned; (3) it does not appear that the judgment debtor was or is a resident of Kings county; (4) there was not sufficient proof “ that the said judgment debtor * * * cannot with due diligence be served with notice of these proceedings.” Young, Kapper, Hagarty, Scudder and Tompkins, JJ., concur.

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

Order granting motion to vacate appointment of receiver affirmed, with ten dollars [731]*731costs and disbursements. The court was without power to appoint a receiver in this proceeding for the reasons: (1) There is no proof that proceedings supplementary to execution under article 45 of the Civil Practice Act had been instituted or were pending at the time the order was made; (2) the record does not show that the judgment creditor was entitled to maintain supplementary proceedings, there being no proof that an execution had been issued or returned; (3) it does not appear that the judgment debtor was or is a resident of Kings county; (4) there was not sufficient proof “ that the said judgment debtor * * * cannot with due diligence be served with notice of these proceedings.” Young, Kapper, Hagarty, Scudder and Tompkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

240 A.D. 730, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shapiro-v-shapiro-nyappdiv-1933.