Case ID: misc_131/html/0039-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Isidore Levy and Another, Doing Business as Levy & Schultz, Respondents, v. Esther Stein and Another, Appellants.
    Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,
    November 16, 1927.
    Municipal Court — city of New York — warrant of seizure vacated where defendants were not given five days’ notice in manner provided for personal service of summons (Mun. Ct. Code, § 72).
    The warrant of seizure issued in the Municipal Court of the City of New York against defendants in this action must be vacated where it not only appears that they were not given the five days’ notice of the application therefor, but that the notice was not served upon them in the manner provided for personal service of summons (Mun. Ct. Code, § 72).
    Appeal by defendants from order of the Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Ninth District, denying defendants’ motion to vacate a warrant of seizure.
    
      Matthew M. Levy, for the appellants.
    
      Jerome J. Freedman, for the respondents.
   Per Curiam.

The order denying the motion of the defendants to vacate the warrant of seizure is reversed, with ten dollars costs, and the motion to vacate such warrant of seizure is granted, with ten dollars costs. Under the statute the defendants were entitled to five days’ notice of the application for the warrant of seizure. This notice was required to be served upon them in the manner provided for personal service of summons. It affirmatively appears that this was not done. (See Mun. Ct. Code, § 72, as amd. by Laws of 1926, chap. 692.)

All concur; present, Delehanty, Lydon and Crain, JJ. 
      
      Since amd. by Laws of 1927, chap. 510.— [Rep.