LASCALA v. GARLAND (1997)

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, New York,

Caroline LASCALA, Respondent, v. Leigh GARLAND et al., Appellants.

Decided: January 23, 1997

Before DiPAOLA, P.J., and STARK and INGRASSIA, JJ.

Nassau/Suffolk Law Services Committee, Inc., Islandia (Thomas Maligno and Victor J. Ambrose of counsel), for appellants. Caroline Lascala, respondent pro se. Robert J. Cimino, County Attorney, Hauppauge (Derrick J. Robinson of counsel), for Suffolk County Sheriff.

Order unanimously reversed without costs and motion to vacate execution granted.

Petitioner obtained a money judgment against appellants and sought to enforce the judgment by seizing their jeep. Appellants moved to vacate the execution and/or for a protective order. Their motion was denied by the Court below.

The notice served upon the tenants/judgment debtors was not proper in that it failed to alert and inform appellants about the possibility that the property subject to the execution could be exempt (see, Siegel, Supplementary Practice Commentaries, McKinney's Consol Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR C5232.5, at 129). Therefore, the notice served by the Sheriff was insufficient and the seizure should be vacated.

The request by the Sheriff for his poundage and fees should be made to the Court below.

MEMORANDUM.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network