Case Name: Albert H. Dollard, Appellant, v. Benjamin Koronsky et al., Doing Business under the Firm Name of B. Koronsky & Son, Defendants. In the Matter of the Motion to Adjudge Max E. Bloch, Respondent, Guilty of Contempt
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1910-10-11
Citations: 199 N.Y. 558
Docket Number: 
Parties: Albert H. Dollard, Appellant, v. Benjamin Koronsky et al., Doing Business under the Firm Name of B. Koronsky & Son, Defendants. In the Matter of the Motion to Adjudge Max E. Bloch, Respondent, Guilty of Contempt.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 199
Pages: 558–559

Head Matter:
Albert H. Dollard, Appellant, v. Benjamin Koronsky et al., Doing Business under the Firm Name of B. Koronsky & Son, Defendants. In the Matter of the Motion to Adjudge Max E. Bloch, Respondent, Guilty of Contempt.
Dollard v. Koronsky, 138 App. Div. 213, affirmed.
(Argued September 26, 1910;
decided October 11, 1910.)
Appeal, by permission, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered May 20, 1910, affirming an order of the Appellate Term which reversed an order of the City Court of the city of New York adjudging the respondent herein guilty of contempt of court.
The following question was certified :
“ Where the eourt orders the release, pendente lite, oí a challenged levy of execution, provided the debtor cause to be substituted in its place, for the creditor’s protection, an undertaking conditioned for the payment of the supporting judgment and certain expenses in case the attack on the levy should ultimately fail; and where, to procure such release, such an undertaking, joint and several in form, is thereupon furnished, reciting in terms said order and its said protectory provision; and where the sureties thereon are, at the time of qualifying, each worth double the amount of such undertaking; and where the levy is thereupon released; and such attack on such levy ultimately fails — is it a civil contempt of court for one of the sureties on sucíi undertaking to willfully divest himself of all of his property for the deliberate and successful purpose of rendering valueless any judgment which might be recovered against him upon said undertaking, thus destroying the protection granted to the creditor as a condition of releasing the levy of the execution and defeating, impeding and prejudicing the rights and remedies of the creditor 1 ”
YorTce Allen for appellant.
Louis Marshall for respondent.

Opinion:
Order affirmed, with costs, and question certified answered in the negative; no opinion.
Concur: Cullen, Cli. J., Haight, Vann, Werner, IIiscook and Chase, JJ. Absent: Willard Bartlett, J.