Case Name: Carl Kropf, Individually and Doing Business as International Fluorescent Co., Respondent, v. Joseph Electric Co. Inc., et al., Defendants, and Bernard Orenstein, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1957-06-13
Citations: 9 Misc. 2d 271
Docket Number: 
Parties: Carl Kropf, Individually and Doing Business as International Fluorescent Co., Respondent, v. Joseph Electric Co. Inc., et al., Defendants, and Bernard Orenstein, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Miscellaneous Reports
Volume: 9
Pages: 271–272

Head Matter:
Carl Kropf, Individually and Doing Business as International Fluorescent Co., Respondent, v. Joseph Electric Co. Inc., et al., Defendants, and Bernard Orenstein, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,
June 13, 1957.
Jack Levy and Samuel W. Gilman for appellant.
Freda Silbowits for respondent.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
Where a complaint is predicated on causes of action in contract and tort, not all of which authorize the granting of a body execution, such execution may not issue unless it is clear that plaintiff's recovery was based on a cause of action which authorizes a body execution (Boyle v. Semenoff, 201 App. Div. 426). Upon the verdict here, plaintiff lost his right to a body execution and there is nothing that plaintiff could adduce before another court in addition to the papers before the court on the application here under review which would entitle him to a body execution. Accordingly the motion should have been denied on the merits and it was error to deny the application " without prejudice ".
The order should be modified by deleting therefrom the words " without prejudice " and as modified affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.
Hecht, Aurelio and Tilzer, JJ., concur.
Order modified, etc.