You are here: / / Criteria for Seizure of Equipment Explained
,

Criteria for Seizure of Equipment Explained

In reversing Supreme Court, the Second Department determined the plaintiff, in a replevin action, was not required to demonstrate irreparable harm in an action for seizure pursuant to CPLR 7102.  The defendant had defaulted on an equipment lease.  The court wrote:

Pursuant to CPLR 7102(c) and (d), on a motion for an order of seizure, a plaintiff must demonstrate a likelihood of success on its cause of action for replevin and the absence of a valid defense to its claim … . Here, the plaintiff made such a showing … . Contrary to the court’s determination, the plaintiff was not required to demonstrate that it would suffer irreparable injury in order to obtain an order of seizure pursuant to CPLR 7102.  TCF Equip Fin Inc v Interdimensional Interiors, Inc, 2013 NY Slip 05893, 2nd Dept 9-18-13

 

You might also like
THE ARBITRATION AGREEMENT CALLED FOR NOTIFICATION OF AN ARBITRATION BY CERTIFIED MAIL; ALTHOUGH THE APPELLANT APPARENTLY NEVER PICKED UP THE MAILED NOTICE AND DID NOT APPEAR AT THE ARBITRATION, HER DUE PROCESS RIGHTS WERE NOT VIOLATED; THE PARTIES’ AGREEMENT ON THE METHOD OF SERVICE CONTROLS (SECOND DEPT).
THE FACT THAT THE HOME WAS ILLUMINATED WHEN THE PROCESS SERVER ATTEMPTED SERVICE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT WAS EVADING SERVICE; THE PROCESS SERVER DID NOT ATTEMPT SERVICE AT DEFENDANT’S PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT; THE “NAIL AND MAIL” SERVICE WAS INVALID (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, SUA SPONTE, AS ABANDONED PURSUANT TO 22 NYCRR 202.48; THE 60-DAY TIME LIMIT ONLY APPLIES TO THE DIRECTION TO SUBMIT A JUDGMENT “ON NOTICE” (SECOND DEPT).
INJURED PARTY DID NOT TIMELY NOTIFY INSURER OF HIS CLAIM, INSURER NOT OBLIGATED TO SATISFY DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST THE INSURED.
ERROR IN JUDGMENT JURY CHARGE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GIVEN, NEW TRIAL REQUIRED.
THE BANK DID NOT SUPPLY THE DOCUMENTS RELIED ON TO SHOW DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT AND DID NOT LAY A PROPER FOUNDATION FOR THE DOCUMENTS RELIED ON TO SHOW COMPLIANCE WITH THE MAILING REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304; THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​
OKAY FOR BANK TO SUBMIT RENEWED POWER OF ATTORNEY IN REPLY PAPERS, POWER OF ATTORNEY SUBMITTED WITH MOTION PAPERS HAD APPARENTLY EXPIRED AND DEFENDANTS RAISED THE ISSUE IN ANSWERING PAPERS (SECOND DEPT).
EXCESSIVE INTERFERENCE BY THE TRIAL JUDGE DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF A FAIR TRIAL; ISSUE CONSIDERED ON APPEAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (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

Opening Statement Provided Grounds for Dismissal of False Arrest/Malicious Prosecution... New Affidavits Properly Allowed in Foreclosure Proceedings; Accuracy of the...