General Elec. Credit Corp. v. Davis
| Decision Date | 18 November 1964 |
| Citation | 254 N.Y.S.2d 153,44 Misc.2d 566 |
| Parties | GENERAL ELECTRIC CREDIT CORP. v. Thomas DAVIS. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court |
Jack Taube, Brooklyn, for judgment-creditor.
Plaintiff judgment-creditor seeks to punish defendant judgment-debtor for contempt for failure to comply with a subpoena issued out of the court. The question here is whether the Supreme Court should reject proceedings for the enforcement of a money judgment of the Civil Court where the judgment-debtor resides or has a place of business or transacts business in one of the counties within the City of New York.
Under section 777 of the Civil Practice Act a proceeding against a judgment-debtor could be instituted in the City Court only within the county where the judgment was rendered and only if the debtor resided or was regularly employed or had a place for the regular transaction of business in person in that county. Thus, if the Civil Practice Act were still in effect the judgment-creditor here could not bring a proceeding in the Kings County Civil Court since the conditions above-enumerated do not exist. However, section 5221(a)(2) CPLR now provides that if the judgment sought to be enforced was entered in the Municipal Court of the City of New York, the City Court of the City of New York, or the Civil Court of the City of New York and the judgment-debtor resides or is regularly employed or has a place for the regular transaction of business in person anywhere within the city the special proceeding for the enforcement of the money judgment 'shall be commenced in the civil court of the city of New York.' Thus, on the facts here obtaining, the judgment-creditor may presently institute the proceedings in the Civil Court.
The problem is, however, complicated by section 5018(a) CPLR which provides that a money judgment of the Civil Court may be docketed with the County Clerk and 'A judgment docketed by transcript under this subdivision shall have the same effect as a docketed judgment entered in the supreme court within the county where it is docketed.' It may consequently be argued that since a docketed judgment such as the one under consideration here has the same effect as a Supreme Court judgment, the judgment-creditor may also pursue his remedies for the enforcement of a money judgment out of this court.
Yet it seems to me that the sense of these sections, when read together, is to avoid the enforcement of a judgment...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bobrowsky v. Bozzuti
...determination of the proper distribution of the administrative burdens imposed by these proceedings (see General Elec. Credit Corp. v. Davis, 44 Misc.2d 566, 254 N.Y.S.2d 153; 6 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, N.Y.Civ.Prac., par. 5221.08; State of New York, Third Preliminary Report of the Advisory C......
-
Garrison Fuel Oil of Long Island, Inc. v. Grippo
...Practice Commentary to McKinney's, Book 7B, 1964-1977 Supp. Pamph., CPLR 5221, by David D. Siegel. Cf. General Electric Credit Corp. v. Davis, 44 Misc.2d 566, 254 N.Y.S.2d 153. Note McKinney's, Book 1, Statutes, Sect. 171). (But see Siegel, New York Practice § Since, from the papers present......
-
Farone v. Korey Motors, Inc.
... ... Anne M. FARONE ... KOREY MOTORS, INC. and General Motors Corporation ... Supreme Court, Special Term, ... ...