This case is being heard in the Second Department, Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York. The appellant in the case is The Oysterman’s Bank & Trust Company. Fred A. Weeks, etc. is the defendant in the case and Alice Call is the respondent.
A New York Probate Lawyer said a judgment was entered in the favor of the appellant against the defendant in the Supreme Court of Nassau County on the first of August, 1968. On the 13th of December, 1968 an execution on the judgment was issued to the Sherriff of Suffolk County against the interest of the defendant in certain real property. The amount of $632.09 was due in order to satisfy the judgment. The property in question was owned by the defendant as a tenant in common with the respondent.
The defendant passed away in May of 1969 and the Sherriff advertised the property as for sale in September of 1969. The respondent brought forth this proceeding in order to stay the Sherriff’s sale of the property.
Court Discussion and Decision
The law provides that after the death of a judgment debtor an execution upon a money judgment will not be levied upon any debt that was owed to him or any property which he has an interest and no other enforcement procedure will be undertaken with respect to the debt or the property, except with the leave provided by the surrogate’s court.
It is the opinion of this court that the previous court made an error when they stayed the Sherriff’s sale. Long Island Probate Lawyers said the respondent does not have any type of standing to seek a stay of the enforcement proceedings made by the judgment creditor, the appellant, against his debtor.
The respondent argues that she is the sole beneficiary of the judgment debtor under his will, that document was not submitted for probate until half a year after the death of the judgment debtor. The purported will that is noted in the record on appeal does not indicate that it was executed as required under section 32.1 of the Estates, Powers, and Trusts law.
From the record the court finds that the respondent has failed to prove that she is anything but a simply legal stranger to the judgment debtor in this case and does not have any legal standing to stay the judgment creditor’s enforcement proceedings in the matter.
Queens Probate Lawyers said the statutory prohibitions in this case do not appear to be applicable in the instant situation. The respondent lacks the necessary grounds to stay the enforcement proceedings in this case. It is for these reasons that the court finds in favor of the appellant. The original order that was made in the court to stay the Sherriff’s sale is reversed. The appeal is granted and the application made by the defendant is denied.
Stephen Bilkis & Associates offers legal services throughout the metropolitan area of Manhattan. Call one of offices at any time to set up an appointment to discuss your legal issue. We offer each of our clients a free consultation on their first visit to one of our offices. Come in and speak with an experienced New York lawyer today.