You are here: / / THE MOTION FOR AN ORDER OF ATTACHMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; CRITERIA...
,

THE MOTION FOR AN ORDER OF ATTACHMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the motion for an order of attachment should not have been granted:

“In order to be granted an order of attachment under CPLR 6201(3), a plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant has concealed or is about to conceal property in one or more of several enumerated ways, and has acted or will act with the intent to defraud creditors, or to frustrate the enforcement of a judgment that might be rendered in favor of the plaintiff” … . “Affidavits containing allegations raising a mere suspicion of an intent to defraud are insufficient. It must appear that such fraudulent intent really existed in the defendant’s mind” … . The “mere removal, assignment or other disposition of property is not grounds for attachment” … . Cyngiel v Krigsman, 2021 NY Slip Op 01391, Second Dept 3-10-21

 

You might also like
WHEN A PRIOR MOTION HAS BEEN DENIED ON PROCEDURAL GOUNDS “WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO RENEW,” THE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO RENEW THE PRIOR MOTION DOES NOT HAVE TO BE SUPPORTED BY REASONABLE JUSTIFICATION FOR PRESENTING NEW FACTS (SECOND DEPT).
NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION ACTION AGAINST SCHOOL DISTRICT PROPERLY SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT, STUDENT ASSAULTED INFANT PLAINTIFF.
FAILURE TO STRICTLY COMPLY WITH CONDITION-PRECEDENT NOTICE PROVISIONS IN THE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT PRECLUDED RECOVERY FOR DELAY DAMAGES.
Strictly Construing the Policy, Falling Through a Defective Manhole (Located in the Parking Lot) Into the Building’s Septic System Was Not Subject to the “Parking Lot” Exclusion from Coverage—The Claim Did Not Arise from the “Ownership, Maintenance or Use” of the Parking Lot, But Rather Arose from the “Operations Necessary or Incidental” to the Insured Building
THIRD CHILD SHOULD HAVE BEEN FOUND TO HAVE BEEN DERIVATIVELY NEGLECTED BASED UPON PROOF FATHER INJURED THE TWO OTHER CHILDREN (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE FAILURE TO FILE PROOF OF SERVICE IS NOT A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT AND CAN BE CURED SUA SPONTE, HERE THE PLAINTIFFS DID NOT PROPERLY SEEK LEAVE TO EXCUSE THE FAILURE AND THE JUDGE DID NOT GRANT PLAINTIFFS LEAVE TO FILE A LATE PROOF OF SERVICE; THE SERVICE WHICH WAS ALLOWED TO STAND BY THE JUDGE WAS THEREFORE A NULLITY (SECOND DEPT).
Inference of Defendant’s Negligence Was Not “Inescapable”—Summary Judgment Should Not Have Been Granted to Plaintiff Pursuant to the Doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur
IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE, THE DEFENDANT DRIVER ALLEGED PLAINTIFF DRIVER STOPPED IN THE MIDDLE LANE OF TRAFFIC FOR NO APPARENT REASON, THEREBY RAISING A QUESTION FACT ABOUT WHETHER PLAINTIFF DRIVER WAS SOLELY AT FAULT (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 CRITERIA FOR APPOINTMENT OF A TEMPORARY RECEIVER IN THIS PARTITION AND SALE... PLAINTIFF WAS KNOCKED DOWN WHEN MALL SHOPPERS PANICKED AND FLED BECAUSE A FALLING...