Banco Frances e Brasileiro S. A. v. John Doe No. 1

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Banco Frances e Brasileiro S. A. v. John Doe No. 1

54 A.D.2d 661, 388 N.Y.S.2d 91, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14188

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedOctober 26, 1976

StatusPublished

This text of 54 A.D.2d 661 (Banco Frances e Brasileiro S. A. v. John Doe No. 1) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Banco Frances e Brasileiro S. A. v. John Doe No. 1, 54 A.D.2d 661, 388 N.Y.S.2d 91, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14188 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered June 28, 1976, granting reargument and thereupon implementing the remittitur of the Court of Appeals (Banco Brasileiro v Doe, 36 NY2d 592), unanimously affirmed, with one bill of $40 costs and disbursements to respondent. The appeal from the order of said court entered on May 3, 1976, is unanimously dismissed, as academic, without costs and without disbursements. Our attachment statute (CPLR art 62) passes constitutional muster (AMF v Algo Distrs., 48 AD2d 352) and the underlying merits of plaintiff’s claim would have been considered had defendants sought a post-attachment hearing, which they did not. We have examined the other points raised hereon and find them lacking in merit. Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Murphy, Lupiano, Lane and Nunez, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered June 28, 1976, granting reargument and thereupon implementing the remittitur of the Court of Appeals (Banco Brasileiro v Doe, 36 NY2d 592), unanimously affirmed, with one bill of $40 costs and disbursements to respondent. The appeal from the order of said court entered on May 3, 1976, is unanimously dismissed, as academic, without costs and without disbursements. Our attachment statute (CPLR art 62) passes constitutional muster (AMF v Algo Distrs., 48 AD2d 352) and the underlying merits of plaintiff’s claim would have been considered had defendants sought a post-attachment hearing, which they did not. We have examined the other points raised hereon and find them lacking in merit. Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Murphy, Lupiano, Lane and Nunez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

54 A.D.2d 661, 388 N.Y.S.2d 91, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14188, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/banco-frances-e-brasileiro-s-a-v-john-doe-no-1-nyappdiv-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack