Shea v. Lynskey

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Shea v. Lynskey

133 N.Y.S. 477

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJanuary 10, 1912

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 133 N.Y.S. 477 (Shea v. Lynskey) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Shea v. Lynskey, 133 N.Y.S. 477 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1912).

Pincite

Opinion

SEABURY, J.

The defendant appeals from an order denying a motion to vacate an order directing the defendant judgment debtor to turn over to the receiver, appointed in proceedings supplementary to execution, certain chattels, lease, and possession of a saloon at the premises No. 2407 Washington avenue, borough of the Bronx, New York City.

The examination of the judgment debtor in supplementary proceedings shows that the Lion Brewery holds a chattel mortgage of $4,500 on the fixtures and that the saloon was the property of the defendant’s wife. The defendant admitted that he and his wife’ had signed the mortgage and that he signed the lease. Under these circumstances we think that the learned court below erred in directing the defendant to turn over this property to the receiver of the judgment debtor. The title to this property could not be determined in the proceeding supplementary to execution. Gerton Carriage Company v. Richardson, 6 Misc. Rep. 466, 27 N. Y. Supp. 625; West Side Bank v. Pugsley, 47 N. Y. 368; Barnard v. Kobbe, 54 N. Y. 516; Krone v. Klotz, 3 App. Div. 587, 38 N. Y. Supp. 225. It may be that the defendant’s claim that he did not own the property in question was false; but that issue could only be determined in an action, and could not be summarily determined upon a motion.

[2] The fact that the defendant had made a mortgage on the prop[478]*478erty in May, 1910, did not conclusively establish that he owned the property in September, 1911, when the order directing him to deliver the property to the receiver was made.

Order reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and the motion to vacate the order of September 29, 1911, is granted, with $10 costs. All concur.

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

SEABURY, J.

The defendant appeals from an order denying a motion to vacate an order directing the defendant judgment debtor to turn over to the receiver, appointed in proceedings supplementary to execution, certain chattels, lease, and possession of a saloon at the premises No. 2407 Washington avenue, borough of the Bronx, New York City.

The examination of the judgment debtor in supplementary proceedings shows that the Lion Brewery holds a chattel mortgage of $4,500 on the fixtures and that the saloon was the property of the defendant’s wife. The defendant admitted that he and his wife’ had signed the mortgage and that he signed the lease. Under these circumstances we think that the learned court below erred in directing the defendant to turn over this property to the receiver of the judgment debtor. The title to this property could not be determined in the proceeding supplementary to execution. Gerton Carriage Company v. Richardson, 6 Misc. Rep. 466, 27 N. Y. Supp. 625; West Side Bank v. Pugsley, 47 N. Y. 368; Barnard v. Kobbe, 54 N. Y. 516; Krone v. Klotz, 3 App. Div. 587, 38 N. Y. Supp. 225. It may be that the defendant’s claim that he did not own the property in question was false; but that issue could only be determined in an action, and could not be summarily determined upon a motion.

[2] The fact that the defendant had made a mortgage on the prop[478]*478erty in May, 1910, did not conclusively establish that he owned the property in September, 1911, when the order directing him to deliver the property to the receiver was made.

Order reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and the motion to vacate the order of September 29, 1911, is granted, with $10 costs. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

133 N.Y.S. 477, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shea-v-lynskey-nyappterm-1912.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack