Case Name: Hyman Schnitzer, Resp't, v. Morris Willner, App'lt
Court: New York Court of Common Pleas
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1894-03-06
Citations: 58 N.Y. St. Rep. 45
Docket Number: 
Parties: Hyman Schnitzer, Resp’t, v. Morris Willner, App'lt.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York State Reporter
Volume: 58
Pages: 45–46

Head Matter:
Hyman Schnitzer, Resp’t, v. Morris Willner, App'lt.
(New York Common Pleas, General Term,
Filed March 6, 1894.)
Motion and Order—Irregularity.
An irregularity, not specified in the notice of motion or order to show cause, may he disregarded.
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 L. Sink, for app’lt; David Leventritt, for resp’t.

Opinion:
The Court.,
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, the 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 vras 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 irregu larity was not specified in the debtor's notice of action, or order to show cause, as required by the rules, and therefore might be disregarded. Rule 87.
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 conveyance.
The order is affirmed, with costs and disbursements.