Legal Opinion
Sears Roebuck & Co. v. Austin
Civil Court of the City of New York
Decided September 18, 1969PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtIrving Younger, J.
This motion persuades me that the Bar and the City Marshal may not fully grasp the requirements of *909Civil Court practice in connection with writs of replevin. I therefore start by summarizing it.
The Civil Court is empowered to entertain an action for the recovery of a chattel valued at less than $10,000 (CCA, § 202), and, in accordance with the procedure laid down in the CPLR (CCA, § 801), to issue a requisition (commonly called a writ of replevin) to seize such a chattel (CCA, § 209, subd. [a]).
Replevin is a remedy ancillary to an action for recovery of a chattel (CPLR 7101, 7102, subd. [a]).…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Griffin v. IllinoisSupreme Court of the United States · 1956
- Croker Fire Prevention Corp. v. JacobsAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1932
- Devonia Discount Corp. v. BianchiAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1934
- Kurzweil v. Story & Clark Piano Co.New York Surrogate's Court · 1916
3Cited by8 opinions
- Honeywell Information Systems, Inc. v. Demographic Systems, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 1975
- Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc. v. VezcaninoCivil Court of the City of New York · 1974
- Revelstoke Properties, Inc. v. Beaumont Neckwear, Inc.Civil Court of the City of New York · 1982
- Consolidated Edison Co. v. JonesCivil Court of the City of New York · 1981
- Jamal Estates v. CrockwellAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · 1982
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.