Case ID: misc_7/html/0497-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Hyman Schnitzer, Respondent, v. Morris Willner, Appellant.
    (New York Common Pleas—General Term,
    March, 1894.)
    An irregularity in tlie papers upon which an order sought to he set aside was granted which is not specified in the notice of motion, or order to show cause, may be disregarded.
    A claim that supplementary proceedings were not authorized by the assignee of the judgment cannot be maintained where the affidavit of the debtor on the motion to set aside the order expressly states that the proceedings were taken to obtain evidence for the benefit of such assignee in aid of Ms action to cancel fraudulent conveyances.
    Appeal by defendant, a judgment debtor, from an order of the General Term of the City Court, affirming an order of the Special Term, which denied his motion to vacate an order for his examination in supplementary proceedings.
    
      Isaac I. Sink, for appellant.
    
      David Leventritt, for respondent.
   Per Curiam.

The order in supplementary proceedings was issued upon the affidavit of David Leventritt, made on June 14, 1893, stating that he was the attorney for the plaintiff and judgment creditor. The judgment debtor moved to vacate the order upon an affidavit stating that the judgment had been assigned to one Adolph Cohen prior to June 2, 1893; that Cohen had commenced an action against the debtor and others; to set aside an alleged fraudulent conveyance of the debtor’s property, and that the supplementary proceedings were prosecuted for the purpose of obtaining evidence for Cohen and to be used for his advantage on the trial of his case. The motion was denied, and, we think, properly. It is based on two grounds as now argued before us.

First. That the affidavit in supplementary proceedings was irregular, because it was not made by the attorney of the assignee of the judgment, and did not recite the assignment. The irregularity was not specified in the debtor’s notice of motion or order to show cause, as required by the rules, and, therefore, might be disregarded. Rule 37.

Second. That the supplementary proceedings were unauthorized by the assignee of the judgment. But the debtor’s affidavit shows the contrary, for he expressly states that the proceeding was taken for Cohen’s benefit, in aid of his action, to cancel the fraudulent conveyances.

The order is affirmed, with costs and disbursements.

Present; Daly, Ch. J., Bisohoff and Peyob, JJ.

Order affirmed, with costs.