Case Name: Richard H. Johnson, Respondent, v. Francis Purpura, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1924-03-14
Citations: 208 A.D. 505
Docket Number: 
Parties: Richard H. Johnson, Respondent, v. Francis Purpura, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 208
Pages: 505–511

Head Matter:
Richard H. Johnson, Respondent, v. Francis Purpura, Appellant.
Third Department,
March 14, 1924.
Ejectment — action to remove encroachment of defendant’s building on plaintiff’s land — provision in judgment directing defendant to remove encroachment within ninety days after service of certified copy of judgment unauthorized in law — provision stricken out on motion.
A provision in a judgment in an ejectment action brought to remove an encroachment of the defendant’s building upon the plaintiff’s land, providing that the defendant remove the encroachment within ninety days after the personal service of a certified copy of the judgment upon him, is unauthorized in law and unnecessary and must be stricken out, as such a judgment may be enforced by execution, and if it cannot be enforced by execution, the defendant may be punished for contempt in refusing to comply with the judgment.
Hinman and McCann, JJ., dissent, with opinion.
Appeal by the defendant, Francis Purpura, from an order of the Supreme Court, made at the Franklin Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Franklin on the 29th day of May, 1923, denying the defendant’s motion to strike out the whole or a part of the judgment entered in this action in said county clerk’s office on or about the 7th day of May, 1923.
The action was brought to recover the possession of certain real property of the plaintiff upon which it was claimed the defendant had encroached by the erection thereon of a portion of the defendant’s building. The part of the judgment sought to be stricken out reads as follows: “It is further adjudged and decreed that the defendant remove the encroachments of the said buildings and additions upon the plaintiff’s lands within ninety days from the date of the service upon him personally of a certified copy of the judgment herein.”
F. Ferris Hewitt [Thomas F. McDermott of counsel], for the appellant.
Frederick G. Paddock, for the respondent.

Opinion:
Per Curiam:
City of Syracuse v. Hogan (234 N. Y. 457) is a case in which the complaint cannot be distinguished in principle from that in the present case. The majority opinion of the court contains the following: " It is suggested that the plaintiff cannot recover in this action all the relief to which it is entitled if it be held that it is in ejectment. I do not think this follows. The judgment may be enforced by execution. (Code of Civil Procedure, sec. 1240; Civil Practice Act, sec. 504.) If it cannot be enforced by execution, then the defendant may be punished for contempt in refusing to comply with the judgment. (Code of Civil Procedure, sec. 1241; Civil Practice Act, sec. 505.)" Therefore, the plaintiff does not need the provision in the judgment which is here being criticised. His right to contempt proceedings follows not from that provision but as a matter of right from the fact, if such be the fact, that he cannot enforce his judgment by execution. There is no warrant in the law for the provision in question. Being unauthorized and also unnecessary for the protection of the plaintiff's rights it may on the other hand be prejudicial to the defendant and should, therefore, be stricken out.
All concur, except Hinman, J., dissenting, with an opinion, in which McCann, J., concurs.