Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 1932

Ameranglo Corp. v. Krellberg

Ameranglo Corp. v. Krellberg
Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided January 8, 1932
142 Misc. 478; 254 N.Y.S. 772; 1932 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 926

Counsel

Krellberg, Fitzsimons & Barkin [James M. Fitzsimons and Alfred S. Krellberg of counsel], for the appellant., Fitelson, Lerman & Mayers [Harold A. Lerman and Isadore Fried of counsel], for the respondent.

Ameranglo Corp. v. Krellberg

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam.

Section 775 of the Civil Practice Act, authorizing the maintenance of supplementary proceedings, must be read in the light of sections 640-643 of the Civil Practice Act, under the heading Requisities of execution,” the last named section providing that “ an execution against property, if the judgment-roll is not filed in the clerk’s office of the county to which it is issued, must *479specify the time when the judgment was docketed in that county.” As there is no provision of the City Court Act applicable, the specific requirements of the present Civil Practice Act referred to control.

Since there was no docketing of the judgment in this case there was no warrant for the institution of the supplementary proceedings.

Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements to be set off. against the judgment, and motion denied.

All concur; present, Lydon, Frankenthaler and Untermyer, JJ.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.