
    Morris Florea, Appellant, v. Leon C. Shultz and Another, Respondents.
    Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,
    June 8, 1926.
    Municipal Court, City of New York — city marshal may maintain action for conversion of property in his custody by virtue of levy duly made under attachment — Municipal Court Code, §§ 46, 47 and 161, places city marshals on parity with sheriffs in actions for conversion.
    Plaintiff, a marshal of the city of New York, may maintain an action for conversion of property in his custody by virtue of a levy duly made under a warrant of attachment, since, within the meaning of sections 45, 47 and 151 of the Municipal Court Code, city marshals are placed on a parity with sheriffs and given the right to maintain an action for conversion with respect to property taken as a result of a lawful levy.
    Appeal by plaintiff from a judgment of the Municipal Court of the City of New York, Borough of Manhattan, Eighth District, in favor of defendants.
    
      
      Harry Wylan, for the appellant.
    
      Abraham Shabshelowiiz, for the respondents.
   Per Curiam.

Plaintiff as city marshal sued for conversion on property in his custody and possession by virtue of a levy made pursuant to a warrant of attachment. It is well settled that a sheriff may maintain an action of conversion with respect to property in his possession as a result of a lawful levy. (Dickinson v. Oliver, 112 App. Div. 806; Ansonia, etc., v. Babbitt, 74 N. Y. 395.) Sections 45, 47 and 151 of the Municipal Court Code would appear to place city marshals on a parity with sheriffs in that regard. Moreover, no reason suggests itself for differentiation between a marshal and a sheriff in a situation of this character.

Judgment reversed and a new trial ordered, with thirty dollars costs to appellant to abide the event.

All concur; present, Delehanty, Lydon and Levy, JJ.  