Universal Oven Co. v. Chase Manhattan Bank, N. A.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Universal Oven Co. v. Chase Manhattan Bank, N. A.

79 A.D.2d 654, 433 N.Y.S.2d 835, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14022

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

DecidedDecember 15, 1980

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 79 A.D.2d 654 (Universal Oven Co. v. Chase Manhattan Bank, N. A.) 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

Universal Oven Co. v. Chase Manhattan Bank, N. A., 79 A.D.2d 654, 433 N.Y.S.2d 835, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14022 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for the alleged improper service of a restraining notice and execution with notice to garnishee, defendants separately appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated July 24, 1979, which denied (1) the motion by defendant Grogan, Heggen & Steenburg (Grogan) to dismiss the complaint of the plaintiff and the cross complaint of codefendant Chase Manhattan Bank, N. A. (Chase), and (2) the cross motion of said codefendant to dismiss the complaint. Order reversed, on the law, with one bill of $50 costs and disbursements payable jointly to defendants, and motion and cross motion granted. The record indicates that plaintiff was indebted to Jack Maggiore, judgment debtor of defendant Chase. Accordingly, Chase’s attorney; Grogan, acted properly in levying upon this debt (see CPLR 5232, subd [a]). The fact that plaintiff may have avoided paying this debt because of insurance coverage does not change its status as a debt owed by plaintiff to the judgment debtor Maggiore. Mangano, J. P., Gibbons, Gulotta and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for the alleged improper service of a restraining notice and execution with notice to garnishee, defendants separately appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated July 24, 1979, which denied (1) the motion by defendant Grogan, Heggen & Steenburg (Grogan) to dismiss the complaint of the plaintiff and the cross complaint of codefendant Chase Manhattan Bank, N. A. (Chase), and (2) the cross motion of said codefendant to dismiss the complaint. Order reversed, on the law, with one bill of $50 costs and disbursements payable jointly to defendants, and motion and cross motion granted. The record indicates that plaintiff was indebted to Jack Maggiore, judgment debtor of defendant Chase. Accordingly, Chase’s attorney; Grogan, acted properly in levying upon this debt (see CPLR 5232, subd [a]). The fact that plaintiff may have avoided paying this debt because of insurance coverage does not change its status as a debt owed by plaintiff to the judgment debtor Maggiore. Mangano, J. P., Gibbons, Gulotta and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

79 A.D.2d 654, 433 N.Y.S.2d 835, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14022, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/universal-oven-co-v-chase-manhattan-bank-n-a-nyappdiv-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack