Ackerly & Gerard Co. v. Partz
Opinion of the Court
A judgment was recovered by the plaintiff against the defendant in the supreme court. The judgment roll was filed in Queens county. The defendant resided in that county, and an execution therein directed to the sheriff of Queens county was returned unsatisfied. Upon an affidavit entitled in the supreme court showing these facts, an order was made, also entitled in the supreme court, that the defendant appear and make discovery concerning his property.'-They differ was made by the county judge of Queens county, and the eXaininattpp/iyas required before him. The defendant claims that the proeeeding4s>tn8the- supreme court, and not before the county judge. By section 2434 of the Code, a county judge lias power to institute proceedings supplementary to execution in an action in the supreme court in the county to which an execution may be issued. The affidavit was properly made in the supreme court action." The judgment was still in existence, and this proceeding was’a spdbtaloprbceeding to enforce its payment. If the application had been itiad'eí; befóla judge of the supreme-court, the title.of the judgment would have appeared as it does at present, without valid obj.ec
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.