From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Martin v. Consolidated Edison Co. of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 12, 1991
177 A.D.2d 548 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

Summary

holding that the plaintiff who issued the execution was "under no obligation to recall [it]" where the defendant had obtained the stay in its favor (citing Hosp. Service Plan of N.J., 429 N.Y.S. at 33)

Summary of this case from Carmona v. Gene Kazlow, P.C.

Opinion

November 12, 1991

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Levine, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The court properly concluded that the defendant Consolidated Edison Company of New York (hereinafter Con Ed) is liable to the Sheriff for the poundage fees since Con Ed affirmatively interfered with the Sheriff's collection efforts (see, Personeni v. Aquino, 6 N.Y.2d 35; Thornton v. Montefiore Hosp., 117 A.D.2d 552; Matter of Standardbred Owners Assn. [Yonkers Raceway], 44 Misc.2d 37; cf., Famous Pizza v. Metss Kosher Pizza, 119 A.D.2d 721). The plaintiffs' attorney issued an execution to the Sheriff on or about September 10, 1987, following the trial court's decision that Con Ed, rather than a third-party defendant, was responsible for payment of the settlement in this action. The next day, the Sheriff levied on certain of Con Ed's bank accounts. Con Ed contends that the levy was invalid because, several hours prior to the Sheriff's levy, it had filed an undertaking to obtain a stay pending appeal pursuant to CPLR 5519 (a). There is no proof in the record with respect to when the undertaking was filed, nor does Con Ed allege that the plaintiffs or the Sheriff were given notice of the filing prior to the levy. In any event, the plaintiffs were under no obligation to recall the execution (see, Hospital Serv. Plan v. Warehouse Prod. Sales Employees Union, 76 A.D.2d 882).

Furthermore, Con Ed is liable for the Sheriff's poundage fees because it moved to vacate the plaintiffs' second execution in 1989 (see, CPLR 8012 [b] [2]). The record fails to support Con Ed's contention that the plaintiffs improperly caused the second execution to be issued while a stay was in effect. Bracken, J.P., Harwood, Eiber and O'Brien, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Martin v. Consolidated Edison Co. of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 12, 1991
177 A.D.2d 548 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

holding that the plaintiff who issued the execution was "under no obligation to recall [it]" where the defendant had obtained the stay in its favor (citing Hosp. Service Plan of N.J., 429 N.Y.S. at 33)

Summary of this case from Carmona v. Gene Kazlow, P.C.

In Martin, Con Edison claimed to have filed an undertaking pending determination of its motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals.

Summary of this case from Solow v. Janof
Case details for

Martin v. Consolidated Edison Co. of New York

Case Details

Full title:WARREN MARTIN et al., Respondents, v. CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY OF NEW…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Nov 12, 1991

Citations

177 A.D.2d 548 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
576 N.Y.S.2d 290

Citing Cases

Depasquale v. EState C. Depasquale

In addition, courts have held that a party that affirmatively interferes with the collection process will be…

Arcamone-Makinano v. Britton Prop., Inc.

In this case, had the plaintiff initially invoked the services of the marshal after the undertaking without…