From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rubinstein v. Rubinstein

Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County
May 5, 1941
176 Misc. 823 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1941)

Opinion

May 5, 1941.

Frank L. Miller, for the plaintiff.

Peter J. Haberkorn, for the defendant.


Motion to vacate ex parte order for examination under section 1094-a of the Civil Practice Act is granted. The section authorizes an examination only in an action to recover a chattel, and the complaint here refers only to shares of stock and makes no reference to any certificate representing or evidencing such shares. Even if it had referred to such certificate I think the result would be the same. Certificates of stock are personal property, but they are not chattels. ( Ajax Craftsmen, Inc., v. Whinston, 269 N.Y. 7; Gen. Constr. Law, § 15; Niles v. Mathusa, 162 N.Y. 546; Crocker Fire Prevention Corp. v. Jacobs, 235 A.D. 216.) When the Legislature, upon the recommendation of the Judicial Council, changed the holding in the Ajax Craftsmen's case ( supra), that such certificates are not subject to levy under an execution, it did so not by amending section 679 of the Civil Practice Act or section 15 Gen. Constr. of the General Construction Law so as to include them in the phrase "goods and chattels," but by enacting separate provisions specifically subjecting them to executions. (Laws of 1936, chap. 153, amdg. Civ. Prac. Act, § 687, and Pers. Prop. Law, § 162 Pers. Prop..) To hold that such certificates are chattels would create needless uncertainty and complications by apparently making them subject to the law relating to chattel mortgages. (See Niles v. Mathusa, supra.)


Summaries of

Rubinstein v. Rubinstein

Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County
May 5, 1941
176 Misc. 823 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1941)
Case details for

Rubinstein v. Rubinstein

Case Details

Full title:SERGE RUBINSTEIN, Plaintiff, v. ANDRE RUBINSTEIN, Defendant

Court:Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County

Date published: May 5, 1941

Citations

176 Misc. 823 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1941)
28 N.Y.S.2d 68

Citing Cases

Saper v. Delgado

And the proviso now appearing in the section specifically states that such rights of action shall not vest in…

Horowitz v. Securities Clearance Corp.

Prac. Act, § 826) and in this connection shares of stock are not chattels. This was true prior to 1952 (…