From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Patterson v. Patterson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 28, 1937
251 App. Div. 272 (N.Y. App. Div. 1937)

Opinion

May 28, 1937.

Appeal from Supreme Court of New York County.

John B. Doyle, for the plaintiff.

Sidney Salant, for the defendant.

Present — MARTIN, P.J., O'MALLEY, DORE, COHN and CALLAHAN, JJ.


The court was without power to order a sequestration of defendant's monthly earnings to become due. There must be a definite property right in the husband in order that the wife obtain relief by way of sequestration under sections 1171 or 1171-a of the Civil Practice Act. Where, as here, defendant is entitled to nothing except payment of services to be performed, his earnings accruing subsequent to the time of the appointment of a receiver cannot be reached by plaintiff in sequestration. ( Valentine v. Williams, Inc., 159 N.Y. Supp. 815; affd., 179 App. Div. 884; affd., 223 N.Y. 574; Rolt-Wheeler v. Rolt-Wheeler, 175 App. Div. 852.) The order should accordingly be reversed, without costs, and plaintiff's motion denied. The cross-appeal from the order requiring the receiver to furnish a bond in the sum of $1,000 on the ground that the amount of the undertaking is excessive should be dismissed.


Order appealed from by the defendant unanimously reversed, without costs, and plaintiff's motion denied. Cross-appeal by plaintiff dismissed.


Summaries of

Patterson v. Patterson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 28, 1937
251 App. Div. 272 (N.Y. App. Div. 1937)
Case details for

Patterson v. Patterson

Case Details

Full title:ROSEMARY W. PATTERSON, Respondent, Appellant, v. ROGER W. PATTERSON…

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

Date published: May 28, 1937

Citations

251 App. Div. 272 (N.Y. App. Div. 1937)
296 N.Y.S. 311

Citing Cases

Neidorf v. Neidorf

The affidavit of Benson's president substantiate that these payments are identical in amount with payments…

Lamothe v. Lamothe

The Supreme Court was not required to direct the posting of security as a condition for sequestration of the…