Sheridan Farms, Inc. v. Federico

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Sheridan Farms, Inc. v. Federico

48 Misc. 2d 599, 265 N.Y.S.2d 922, 1965 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1361

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedNovember 12, 1965

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 48 Misc. 2d 599 (Sheridan Farms, Inc. v. Federico) 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

Sheridan Farms, Inc. v. Federico, 48 Misc. 2d 599, 265 N.Y.S.2d 922, 1965 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1361 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

It was not essential to a valid levy in the circumstances of this case that the Marshal take the property levied upon away from the judgment debtor. The property was inventoried by the Marshal and the debtor put on notice that it was being levied upon pursuant to the execution lodged with the Marshal, who left with the debtor copies of the execution, inventory and notice of sale and posted a notice of levy. The Marshal thereby exercised dominion and took custody of the property pursuant to the levy and it passed from the debtor’s custody and was placed in custodia legis. (Bond v. Willett, 31 N. Y. 102; Barker v. Binninger, 14 N. Y. 270; Wehle v. Conner, 83 N. Y. 231, 235; Matter of Kogan, 141 Misc. 412; Ray v. Harcourt, 19 Wend. 495.) Since appellant’s execution was prior in time to respondent’s and the levy thereunder was valid, appellant’s execution was entitled to priority over that of respondent.

The order should be reversed, with $10 costs to appellant and the matter remitted to the court below for appropriate proceedings in accordance herewith.

Concur — Hofstadter, J. P., Tilzer and Heciit, JJ.

Order reversed, etc.

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

Per Curiam.

It was not essential to a valid levy in the circumstances of this case that the Marshal take the property levied upon away from the judgment debtor. The property was inventoried by the Marshal and the debtor put on notice that it was being levied upon pursuant to the execution lodged with the Marshal, who left with the debtor copies of the execution, inventory and notice of sale and posted a notice of levy. The Marshal thereby exercised dominion and took custody of the property pursuant to the levy and it passed from the debtor’s custody and was placed in custodia legis. (Bond v. Willett, 31 N. Y. 102; Barker v. Binninger, 14 N. Y. 270; Wehle v. Conner, 83 N. Y. 231, 235; Matter of Kogan, 141 Misc. 412; Ray v. Harcourt, 19 Wend. 495.) Since appellant’s execution was prior in time to respondent’s and the levy thereunder was valid, appellant’s execution was entitled to priority over that of respondent.

The order should be reversed, with $10 costs to appellant and the matter remitted to the court below for appropriate proceedings in accordance herewith.

Concur — Hofstadter, J. P., Tilzer and Heciit, JJ.

Order reversed, etc.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

48 Misc. 2d 599, 265 N.Y.S.2d 922, 1965 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1361, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sheridan-farms-inc-v-federico-nyappterm-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack