Case Name: WARD v. STODDARD
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1911-01-10
Citations: 127 N.Y.S. 713
Docket Number: 
Parties: WARD v. STODDARD.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 127
Pages: 713–720

Head Matter:
(70 Misc. Rep. 506.)
WARD v. STODDARD.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
January 10, 1911.)
1. Execution (§ 378 )—Supplementary Proceedings—“Special Proceeding.”
Under Code Civ. Proc. §§ 3333, 3334, defining a “special proceeding” as every prosecution other than an action for the enforcement or protection of a right or the redress or prevention of a wrong, and sections 2434 and 2454, authorizing a proceeding for the examination of a judgment debtor and providing that such proceeding may be discontinued by order, a supplementary proceeding for the examination of a judgment debtor is a “special proceeding,” and when instituted it can only be continued by an order within sections 26 and 2433, providing that a special proceeding instituted before a judge may be continued by other judges of the same court,' and that an order made by a judge may be vacated or modified by him.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Execution, Dec. Dig. § 378.*]
2. Execution (§ 378 )—Supplementary Proceedings—Orders—Jurisdiction of Court.
Under Code Civ. Proc. §§ 26, 2433, providing that a special proceeding may be continued by other judges of the same court, and providing that an order made by a judge may be vacated or modified by him, one justice of the City Court of the City of New York has power to continue supplementary proceedings instituted before another justice, but the continuance must be by an order duly signed, and an order requiring the debtor to appear for examination on a certain date may not be modified by another judge by merely changing the date in the original order before the service thereof, and placing in the margin opposite the change his initials, but the judge must indorse on the original order the statement that the proceeding is continued until a specified time, and he must sign the same either by his initials or his full name.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Execution, Dec. Dig. § 378.*]
3. Execution (§ 10 )—Judgment—Filing of Transcript—Effect.
Where a transcript of a judgment of a Municipal Court of the City of New York is filed in the office of the county clerk of New York county, the judgment thereby becomes a judgment of the Supreme Court for purposes of enforc’ement.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Execution, Cent. Dig. §§ 25-27; Dec. Dig. § 10. ]
4. Execution (§ 418*)—Supplementary Proceedings—Contempt—Jurisdiction of Court.
Under Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2434, 2457, providing that, where a judgment on which execution was issued was recovered in the District Court of the City of .New York, special proceedings shall be instituted before a justice of the City Court, and providing that one refusing to obey an order of a judge may be punished by the judge or by the court out of which the execution was issued, as for contempt, a supplementary proceeding on a judgment of the Municipal Court, a transcript of which has been filed in the office of the county clerk, can only be instituted before a justice of the City Court, and the only justice who may punish for a disobedience of an order in such a proceeding is the justice whose order is disobeyed, and another justice may not punish for contempt, and he can only issue an order to show cause returnable before the justice whose order has been disobeyed.
[Ed. Note.—For other eases, see Execution, Dec. Dig. § 418. ]
Gavegan, J., dissenting.
Appeal from City Court of New York, Special Term.
Supplementary proceedings by Thomas Ward, judgment creditor, against Charles H. Stoddard, judgment debtor. Prom an order of the City Court of the City of New York adjudging the debtor guilty of contempt of court, he appeals.
Reversed.
Argued before GIEGERICH, BRADY, and GAVEGAN, JJ.
Howard A. Sperry, for appellant.
William C. Relyea, for respondent.
For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes
For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes

Opinion:
BRADY, J.
A judgment was rendered on January 24, 1902, for the sum of $46.06 in favor of the plaintiff against this defendant in the Municipal Court for the then Tenth District of Manhattan. The judg ment was docketed on January 29, 1902, in the office of the clerk of New York county and an execution issued thereon out of the Supreme Court by said clerk on February 6, 1902. On August 9, 1910, an order was made by Hon. Peter Schmuck, a justice of the City Court of the City of New York, requiring the defendant to appear before him, one of the justices of said court at chambers thereof, etc., on the 16th day of August, 1910, at 10 o'clock in the forenoon of that day, etc., to submit to examination in proceedings supplementary to execution. On September 13, 1910, the defendant judgment debtor was personally served with a paper, which was in all respects a copy of said order, except that the date "August 16th" was stricken out and the date "September 14th" substituted therefor, and in the margin of the paper opposite said change were written the letters, "E. B. L. J. C. C." It is claimed by the respondent that the original order of Justice Schmuck was presented to Hon. Edward B. La Fetra, a justice of the City Court sitting at chambers on August 16, 1910, at 10 a. m. for extension, and that the return date was altered from August 16, 1910, to September 14, 1910, and that said justice thereupon wrote upon the margin opposite said date the initials, "E. B. L. J. C. C.," to authenticate said change. The defendant failed to appear for examination or otherwise on September 14, 1910, and his default was noted. Thereafter on September 30, 1910, an order to show cause why said debtor should not be punished for contempt was procured, and on the return day, October 6, 1910, the debtor appeared specially by counsel and objected to the jurisdiction of the court to make the order. The Honorable Edward F. O'Dwyer, Chief Justice of the City Court presiding at chambers upon the return of said order to show cause, after due deliberation adjudged the debtor in contempt and fined him the amount of the judgment and interest thereon, with $20 costs, aggregating $90.01 and made the order from which the judgment debtor appeals.
For the purposes of this appeal, it may be assumed as fact that Justice Edward B. La Fetra of the City Court of the City of New York was presiding at chambers of said court, the place mentioned in the order of Justice Schmuck on the 16th day of August, 1910, at 10 o'clock in the forenoon and wrote his initials opposite the alteration in the date of the original order of Justice Schmuck. The question then arises whether the order of Justice Schmuck was thereby legally extended, or, in other words, whether one judge possesses the right in such circumstances to alter or extend the order of another judge.
It is quite true that for many years such practice was followed in all the courts having jurisdiction of supplementary proceedings and had never been questioned.
In Vogel v. Ninmark, 62 Misc. Rep. 591, 116 N. Y. Supp. 825, however, decided at Special Term in the Second Department of this court in March, 1909, it was held that such an alteration was unauthorized and the order a nullity. The correctness of this determination was discussed and criticised by the Special Term of the City Court of the City of New York in a very interesting opinion written in Bridges v. Koppelman, 63 Misc. Rep. 27, 117 N. Y. Supp. 306, in April, 1909. As matter of fact, the authority of the former case has been recognized by all justices of this court sitting in Special Term, Part 2 in this Department, and alterations are now made only by the justice who signed the original order. Authority for such extension by one judge of an order- made by another is alleged to be found in section 26, Code Civ. Proc., which provides that:
"In the First and Second judicial districts, a special proceeding instituted before a judge of a court of record or a proceeding commenced before a judge of the court, out of court, in an action or special proceeding pending in a court of record may be continued from time to time before one or more other judges of the same court with like effect as if it had been instituted or commenced before the judge who last hears the same."
It may be true that the proceeding was instituted by the signing of the order of Justice Schmuck, and that proposition was ably argued by the justice writing the opinion in Bridges v. Koppelman, supra; but I doubt that the mode adopted for the continuance by initialing simply was legah A. proper service of the order would require the exhibition of the original with the judge's signature thereon, and, as the order so served would contain the direction of two judges, the signatures of both judges must necessarily appear thereon with sufficient words to indicate the intent of the judge making the extension.
We are inclined, however, to follow the authority of Vogel v. Ninmark, supra, and, as the order directing the defendant to appear for examination was a nullity when served, a discussion of the many other points raised by the appellant becomes unnecessary.
Order reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and motion denied.
GAVEGAN, J., dissents.