Opinion
October 17, 1949.
Order denying appellant's motion for a summary order directing an attorney to pay over to her moneys alleged to have been received by her as alimony in a divorce action, and by her in part paid to the attorney and in part deposited in court in lieu of an undertaking on appeal, affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. It is our opinion that this record does not present a proper case for such summary action against an attorney ( Matter of Bailey v. Rutherford, 242 N.Y. 220, 223); and, furthermore, the judgment of a competent court, after trial of the issues between the parties, may not be thus collaterally impeached. ( Trupin v. D.M.W. Contr. Co., 259 App. Div. 529, 532.) Johnston, Acting P.J., Adel, Sneed, Wenzel and MacCrate, JJ., concur.