Case ID: misc_142/html/0478-01.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

Ameranglo Corporation, Judgment Creditor, Respondent, v. Sherman S. Krellberg, Judgment Debtor, Appellant.
    Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,
    January 8, 1932.
    
      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.
   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 specify 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.