Wagenheim v. Ocean Parkway Properties, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Wagenheim v. Ocean Parkway Properties, Inc.

235 A.D. 642

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

DecidedJanuary 15, 1932

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 235 A.D. 642 (Wagenheim v. Ocean Parkway Properties, Inc.) 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

Wagenheim v. Ocean Parkway Properties, Inc., 235 A.D. 642 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment modified by striking therefrom paragraphs 3 and 4 and, as so modified, unanimously affirmed, with costs to respondents. There was no legal justification for inserting in the judgment the paragraphs struck out. (Civ. Rights Law, § 21.) The judgment directed the payment of a sum of money, which was enforeible by execution under the provisions of the Civil Practice Act, section 504. Failure to pay would not be punishable in contempt proceedings, and whether or not an execution may be had against the person of these defendants upon the return unsatisfied of an execution against property (Civ. Prac. Act, §§ 764, 766) is not a question presented here and is not decided. (See Meyers v. Becker, 95 N. Y. 486; Harris v. Elliott, 163 id. 269; Matter of Hess, 48 Hun, 586; Coffin v. Coffin, 161 App. Div. 215; People ex rel. Sarlay v. Pope, 230 id. 649.) Present —- Lazansky, P. J., Young, Scudder, Tompkins and Davis, JJ.

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

Judgment modified by striking therefrom paragraphs 3 and 4 and, as so modified, unanimously affirmed, with costs to respondents. There was no legal justification for inserting in the judgment the paragraphs struck out. (Civ. Rights Law, § 21.) The judgment directed the payment of a sum of money, which was enforeible by execution under the provisions of the Civil Practice Act, section 504. Failure to pay would not be punishable in contempt proceedings, and whether or not an execution may be had against the person of these defendants upon the return unsatisfied of an execution against property (Civ. Prac. Act, §§ 764, 766) is not a question presented here and is not decided. (See Meyers v. Becker, 95 N. Y. 486; Harris v. Elliott, 163 id. 269; Matter of Hess, 48 Hun, 586; Coffin v. Coffin, 161 App. Div. 215; People ex rel. Sarlay v. Pope, 230 id. 649.) Present —- Lazansky, P. J., Young, Scudder, Tompkins and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

235 A.D. 642, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wagenheim-v-ocean-parkway-properties-inc-nyappdiv-1932.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack