Hand v. Ortschreib Bldg. Corp.

Decision Date13 May 1930
PartiesHAND v. ORTSCHREIB BUILDING CORPORATION et al.
CourtNew York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Proceedings supplementary to execution under a judgment in favor of Anna Hand against the Ortschreib Building Corporation and others, defendants, and the Municipal Bank & Trust Company and others, third parties. From an order of the Appellate Division (228 App. Div. 835, 241 N. Y. S. 807), which modified and affirmed as modified an order of Special Term (240 N. Y. S. 589) adjudging the appellants guilty of contempt of court for failure to obey the terms of a third party order in proceedings supplementary to execution, the third party and others appeal. On motion to dismiss appeal.

Motion granted, and appeal dismissed.

Motion to dismiss an appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department, entered March 14, 1930, which modified and affirmed as modified an order of Special Term adjudging the appellants guilty of contempt of court for failure to obey the terms of a third party order in proceedings supplementary to execution.

The motion was made upon the grounds that the order appealed from was interlocutory; that permission to appeal had not been obtained, and that no constitutional question was involved.Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second department.

Herman W. Bernstein, of New York City, for the motion.

Gerson C. Young, of New York City, opposed.

PER CURIAM.

The proceeding was instituted under subdivision 3 of section 773 of the Civil Practice Act. The appellant was a party to that proceeding. An order adjudging a party guilty of a civil contempt in proceedings supplemental to execution is not a final order. Matter of Steinman v. Conlon, 208 N. Y. 198, 101 N. E. 863.

Motion granted, and appeal dismissed, with costs and $10 costs of motion.

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Graf v. Hope Bldg. Corp.
    • United States
    • New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • May 13, 1930
    ... ... Here, on the other hand, there is no endeavor by the owner of the property to charge the mortgagee with an obligation to do anything affirmative. The operation of the decree ... ...
  • Fox v. Capital Co
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • November 9, 1936
    ...Practice Act, § 802, subd. 1, as added by Laws 1935, c. 630; Steinman v. Conlon, 208 N.Y. 198, 101 N.E. 863; Hand v. Ortschreib Building Corporation, 254 N.Y. 15, 171 N.E. 889. It 'shall be deemed closed two years from the service of the order, subpoena or warrant' initiating it, unless ext......
  • NS United Kaiun Kaisha, Ltd. v. Cogent Fibre Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • July 14, 2015
    ... ... A ... v ... AnimalFeeds Int'l Corp ., 559 U.S. 662, 671 (2010). "It is not enough for petitioners to show ... ...
  • Ace Mail Advertising, Inc. v. Newgold
    • United States
    • New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • October 16, 1934
    ...adjudging a party guilty of a civil contempt in proceedings supplementary to execution is not a final order. Hand v. Ortschreib Bldg. Corporation, 254 N. Y. 15, 171 N. E. 889. The judgment against the appellant, obtained on June 30, 1930, was for $4,902.88. Under the supplementary proceedin......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT