Case Name: In re BACKUS
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1904-02-11
Citations: 86 N.Y.S. 638
Docket Number: 
Parties: In re BACKUS.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 86
Pages: 638–644

Head Matter:
(91 App. Div. 266.)
In re BACKUS.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
February 11, 1904.)
1. Examination op Judgment Debtor—Refusal to Answer—Contempt.
Code Civ. Proc. § 2442, relative to supplemental proceedings, provides that an order for examination of a party may require his attendance and examination before a referee. Section 2457 provides that a person who refuses to obey an oral direction given him by a referee in the course of the special proceeding may be punished as for a contempt. Held, that one who refused to answer questions put to him by a referee before whom he had been brought under section 2442 was guilty of contempt.
2. Same—Contempt—Jurisdiction—Statutes.
Code Civ. Proc. § 2457, relative to supplemental proceedings, provides that a person who refuses to obey an oral direction given him by a judge or referee in the course of the special proceeding may be punished by the judge or by the court out of which the execution was issued as for a contempt. Section 2269 provides that where, in contempt proceedings, a warrant is not issued in the first instance, the court must, on being satisfied of the commission of the offense, make an order requiring accused to show cause, etc. Section 2273 provides that the order to show cause may be made either before or after final judgment in the action, or the final order in the special proceeding; that it is equivalent to a notice of motion, and the subsequent proceedings thereupon are taken in the action or special proceeding as upon a motion made therein. The Code requires a proceeding to examine a judgment debtor to be instituted in the county of the debtor’s residence. Held, that where a judgment was recovered in New York county, and proceedings for an examination of the judgment debts were instituted in Rensselaer county on an order of the county judge thereof, and the debtor was guilty of contempt before the referee in the proceedings, contempt proceedings could not be instituted in New York county before a justice of the Supreme Court, but only in Rensselaer county, and in the special proceeding.
Laughlin and O’Brien, JJ., dissenting in part.
Appeal from Special Term, New York County.
Proceedings to punish Frances A. Backus for contempt. From an order granting a motion to punish, she appeals. Reversed.
Argued before VAN BRUNT, P. J., and McEAUGHEIN, O’BRIEN, INGRAHAM, and LAUGHLIN, JJ.
John L. Hille, for appellant.
Henry D. Merchant, for respondent.

Opinion:
INGRAHAM, J.
One Henry D. Merchant recovered a judgment in the Supreme Court, New York county, against Frances A. Backus, the appellant, upon which execution was issued, and returned unsatisfied. The defendant resided in Rensselaer county. After the return of this execution unsatisfied, the judgment creditor obtained an order from the county judge of Rensselaer county which required the judgment debtor to appear before a referee named in the order at his office in the city of Troy, Rensselaer county, to submit to an examination respecting her property. This order was served upon the judgment debtor, who subsequently, with her counsel, appeared before the referee. The judgment creditor then sought to examine the judgment debtor, when she refused to answer questions, and refused to obey the directtions of the referee; and, when the referee insisted upon her answering questions, the judgment debtor and her attorney left the office of the referee. The judgment creditor thereupon obtained from a justice of the Supreme Court, in the First Judicial District, an order requiring the judgment debtor to show cause why she should not be punished for contempt, returnable at a Special Term of the Supreme Court held in the county of New York. Upon the return of this order to show cause, the judgment debtor appeared and submitted, as a preliminary objection to the hearing of the motion, that the defendant resides in the county of Rensselaer; that the special proceedings instituted for her examination in supplementary proceedings were instituted before the county judge of Rensselaer county, and any proceedings in reference thereto must either be taken before the county judge of Rensselaer county, or the Supreme Court of the Third Judicial District. The court overruled the objections, and punished the judgment debtor for contempt.
The supplementary proceedings are regulated by the Code of Civil Procedure, and this proceeding was authorized by subdivision I of section 2432 of the Code. The execution upon which 'that proceeding was founded was issued out of the Supreme Court to the sheriff of Rensselaer county, where the judgment debtor resided, and the proceeding was instituted before the county judge of that county under section 2434 of the Code. By the order of the county judge, the judgment debtor was required to attend and be examined before a referee designated in the order, as provided for by section 2442 of the Code. The judgment debtor appeared before such referee and was sworn, but refused to answer questions and to obey the directions of the referee, and was therefore guilty of contempt, under section 2457 of the Code, which provides that:
"A person who refuses to obey an oral direction, given directly to ' him by a judge or referee, in the course of the special proceeding may be punished by the judge or by the court out of which the execution was issued, as for a contempt."
There is no further provision in the article regulating supplementary proceedings as to the method of enforcing punishment. Section 2266 of the Code provides that:
"In a case specified in section fourteen of this act, or in any other case where it is specially prescribed by law, that a court of record, or a judge thereof, or a referee appointed by the court, has power to punish, by fine and imprison ment, or either, or generally as a contempt, a neglect or violation of duty, or other misconduct; and a right or remedy of a party to a civil action or special proceeding pending in the court, or before the judge or the referee, may be defeated, impaired, impeded, or prejudiced thereby, the offence must be punished as prescribed in this title."
An application to punish a judgment debtor under section 2457 of the Code is therefore regulated by that title. Section 2268 of the Code provides that a warrant may issue in the first instance; and section 2269, that, where a warrant is not issued, the court or judge must, upon being satisfied by affidavit of the commission of the offense, make an order requiring the accused to show cause before it or him, at a time and place therein specified, why the accused should not be punished for the alleged offense. Section 2273 provides that this order to show cause may be made either before or after final judgment in the action, or the final order in the special proceeding; that it is equivalent to a notice of motion, and the subsequent proceedings thereupon are taken in the action or special proceeding, as upon a motion made therein.
This judgment creditor was entitled to an order requiring the judgment debtor to show cause why she should not be punished, which thereupon became, under section 2273 of the Code, an application in that special proceeding pending before the judge who issued the order. Under the provisions of the Code in relation to these supplemental proceedings, a proceeding to examine a judgment debtor has to be instituted in the county in which the judgment debtor resides, and, when that proceeding was there instituted, all subsequent applications to enforce an order in that proceeding must be in that proceeding, and must be determined in the county in which it was instituted. As that proceeding is still pending, the judgment debtor can only be punished by an application made in that proceeding.
It follows that the order appealed from must be reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and the motion dismissed, with $10 costs.
VAN BRUNT, P. J., and McLAUGHRIN, J., concur. '