LEAD NOTE IN ISSUE 240:
The lead note this month is on renewing a judgment whose 10-year lien period is about to expire. The note is captioned, While Judgment Is Renewable During Last Year of Its 10-Year Lien Period, Renewal After Expiration of the 10 Years Is Also Okay.
ISSUE HIGHLIGHTS SEARCH ENGINE:
Our "Issue Highlights"search
engine—available to all site visitors—goes through all issues and will find any word or combination of words in any article or summary contained
in any issue and identify the issue that contains it.
Click on Issue
Index for more details.
FULL TEXT ONLY AVAILABLE ON WESTLAW
Westlaw (www.westlaw.com) is now the exclusive carrier of Siegel's Practice Review. The text of all issues, includng the current one, is accessible there. Those who prefer to read the Review in print can make a printout from Westlaw of any SPR issue, going back to the SPR's 1993 origin.
|
CONTENT OF SPR 240 THIS MONTH:
Lead Note:
- While Judgment Is Renewable During Last Year of Its 10-Year Lien Period, Renewal After Expiration of the 10 Years Is Also Okay
Special Note:
-
Venue Circus: P's Choice of Improper Venue (Kings) Forfeits
Venue Choice to D, so Case P Could Have Brought in Queens Ends Up in Suffolk
General Practice:
- When Judgment Gives D Stated Time for Posting Security and
Before It Expires P Issues Execution to Marshal, Who Levies, That's "Interference" with Collection and Makes P Responsible for Poundage
- Server's Failure to Produce Statutorily Required Records at
Traverse Hearing Produces Jurisdictional Dismissal of Action
- As Long as Confession of Judgment Papers Conform to Statute's Requirements, Clerk Can't Refuse to File Them
- Federal Voluntary "Dismissal" Is Same as State's Voluntary
"Discontinuance": Either One Cancels Time Extension CPLR 205(a) Might Otherwise Support for New Action
Backlog Items:
- Falsehoods in the Affirmation Required in Foreclosure Actions Invokes Frivolity Rule — Rule 130-1.1 — and the Sanctions Under It
- In Furnishing "Arons" Authorization Allowing D Exam of P's
Treating MD, P Is Not Precluded from Requesting That P's Lawyer Be Allowed to Be Present
See Issue 240 Headlines...
|