You are here: / / THE CRITERIA FOR THE HARSH REMEDY OF ATTACHMENT WERE NOT MET (SECOND D...
, ,

THE CRITERIA FOR THE HARSH REMEDY OF ATTACHMENT WERE NOT MET (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the criteria for an order of attachment were not met. The court noted that suspicion of an intent to defraud and the removal, assignment or disposition of property is not enough to warrant the harsh remedy of attachment:

CPLR 6212(a) provides that, on a motion for an order of attachment, “the plaintiff shall show, by affidavit and such other written evidence as may be submitted, that there is a cause of action, that it is probable that the plaintiff will succeed on the merits, that one or more grounds for attachment provided in section 6201 exist, and that the amount demanded from the defendant exceeds all counterclaims known to the plaintiff.” “Attachment is considered a harsh remedy and CPLR 6201 is strictly construed in favor of those against whom it may be employed” … .

The plaintiffs failed to make an adequate evidentiary showing that each of the defendants is a nondomiciliary residing without the state (see CPLR 6201[1]; see also General Construction Law § 35). Moreover, the plaintiffs’ contention that the defendants were attempting to defraud creditors or frustrate enforcement of a possible judgment against them (see CPLR 6201[3]) “was devoid of evidentiary support” … . “The fact that the affidavits in support of an attachment contain allegations raising a suspicion of an intent to defraud is not enough. It must appear that such fraudulent intent really existed in the defendant’s mind” … , and “the mere removal, assignment or other disposition of property is not grounds for attachment” … . 651 Bay St., LLC v Discenza, 2020 NY Slip Op 07331, Second Dept 12-9-20

 

You might also like
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER OPERATOR OF A SKATING RINK PROVIDED PROPER SUPERVISION AND THEREFORE WHETHER THE ASSUMPTION OF RISK DOCTRINE APPLIED, PLAINTIFF ALLEGED SHE WAS PUSHED TO THE ICE BY AN UNRULY SKATER (SECOND DEPT).
THE STIPULATION OF DISCONTINUANCE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE MORTGAGE DEBT WAS DE-ACCELERATED WITHIN THE SIX-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS PERIOD IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION; THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S WAIVER OF APPEAL WAS INVALID; DEFENDANT’S ONE-YEAR SENTENCE, WHICH HAD ALREADY BEEN SERVED, WAS REDUCED BY ONE DAY IN PART TO ADDRESS THE IMMIGRATION CONSEQUENCES OF A ONE-YEAR SENTENCE (SECOND DEPT).
Revocation of Driver’s License for Refusal of the Chemical Test Reversed—No “Reasonable Suspicion” to Justify Vehicle Stop
EXPERT AFFIDAVIT STATING PLAINTIFF PEDESTRIAN DID NOT LOOK FOR TRAFFIC BEFORE CROSSING WAS SPECULATIVE AND DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY GRANTED IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE (SECOND DEPT).
WHETHER THE ENDORSEMENT WAS AFFIXED TO THE NOTE, A STANDING REQUIREMENT, WAS NOT RAISED BY THE DEFENDANTS ON APPEAL AND THEREFORE COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED BY THE APPELLATE COURT (SECOND DEPT).
A FAMILIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE SEX OFFENDER AND THE VICTIM (HERE DEFENDANT’S YOUNG STEPDAUGHTER) DOES NOT INCREASE THE RISK TO THE PUBLIC AND THEREFORE CANNOT, STANDING ALONE, BE THE BASIS FOR AN UPWARD DEPARTURE FROM THE RISK ASSESSMENT GUIDELINES (SECOND DEPT). ​
THE CITY ORDERED PLAINTIFF TO REPAIR A WATER LEAK ON PLAINTIFF’S PROPERTY WHICH THE CITY CLAIMED CAUSED A SINK HOLE IN THE ABUTTING ROAD; PLAINTIFF PAID FOR EXCAVATING THE AREA AND FIXING THE ROAD; PLAINTIFF SUED THE CITY ALLEGING THERE WAS NO WATER LEAK AND THE CITY NEGLIGENTLY ORDERED HER TO REPAIR THE ROAD; THE NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED (NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH PLAINTIFF), BUT THE UNJUST ENRICHMENT CAUSE OF ACTION BASED ON PLAINTFF’S PAYING FOR THE REPAIR OF THE PUBLIC ROAD SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

THE BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL... THE WIFE’S COUNTERCLAIM FOR ADULTERY IN THIS DIVORCE ACTION, WHICH, IF...